340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,693 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
475 U.S. 192 (1986) Cited 76 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that labor law prohibits the assignment or transfer of a collective bargaining agreement against the wishes of the workers for whom the agreement provides representation
Holding review of the Board's decision to apply a new rule of law retrospectively is deferential and that the Board's ruling will be disturbed only if it wreaks manifest injustice
Holding that presenting a union with a ` fait accompli . . . unilaterally inform[ing] the [u]nion that position had already been eliminated" violated a union's right to bargaining provided by the Act
Finding that employer's letter expressed an unequivocal intent to terminate collective bargaining relationship even though it “admittedly did not use precise language in articulating its intent to withdraw”