§

Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc.

156 N.L.R.B. 671 (N.L.R.B. 1966)
Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Brown

    380 U.S. 278 (1965)   Cited 473 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Approving finding of § 8 violation when "employers' conduct is demonstrably so destructive of employee rights and so devoid of significant service to any legitimate business end that it cannot be tolerated consistently with the Act"

  2. Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board

    185 F.2d 732 (D.C. Cir. 1950)   Cited 162 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Joy Silk the Court held that when an employer could have no doubt as to the majority status or when an employer refuses recognition of a union "due to a desire to gain time and to take action to dissipate the union's majority, the refusal is no longer justifiable and constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain set forth in section 8(a)(5) of the Act".

  3. Texas Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    336 F.2d 128 (5th Cir. 1964)   Cited 64 times
    In Texas Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 336 F.2d 128 (5 Cir. 1964), the court held that charges filed by the Union that alleged generally that the company had "engaged in * * * unfair labor practices within the meaning of" Section 8(a)(1) and (3), and then alleged specifically various acts of coercion against a named employee was sufficient to include unfair labor practices by the company against other employees which were not mentioned in the charges.

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

    341 F.2d 750 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 62 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 341 F.2d 750 (6 Cir. 1965), the court granted enforcement of the Board's order finding the requests for copies of statements to be a violation of Section 8(a)(1).

  5. Surprenant Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B

    341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 60 times
    In Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965) this Court approved as non-threatening, language of the employer which was much stronger than that used in the present case.

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Schill Steel Products, Inc.

    340 F.2d 568 (5th Cir. 1965)   Cited 28 times

    No. 21110. January 11, 1965. Lawrence Gold, Atty., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Robert A. Armstrong, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for appellant. Henry L. Scott, Houston, Tex., Trotter, Childs, Fortenbach McClure, Houston, Tex., of counsel, for appellee. Before WISDOM and GEWIN, Circuit Judges, and HANNAY, District Judge. WISDOM, Circuit Judge: The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Georgia Rug Mill

    308 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1962)   Cited 22 times

    No. 19223. September 18, 1962. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Frank A. Constangy, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent. Before BROWN, WISDOM and BELL, Circuit Judges. WISDOM, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order that the respondent, Georgia Rug Mill, cease violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Harbison-Fischer Manufacturing Co.

    304 F.2d 738 (5th Cir. 1962)   Cited 19 times

    No. 19105. June 20, 1962. Melvin Pollack, Atty., N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, for petitioner. Karl Mueller, Fort Worth, Tex., Harold E. Mueller, Mueller Mueller, Fort Worth, Tex., for respondent. Before HUTCHESON, WISDOM, and BELL, Circuit Judges. GRIFFIN B. BELL, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board here seeks enforcement of its order against Harbison-Fischer

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Montgomery Ward

    242 F.2d 497 (2d Cir. 1957)   Cited 23 times

    No. 211, Docket 24251. Argued January 11, 1957. Decided March 18, 1957. Theophil C. Kammholtz, Gen. Counsel, Stephen Leonard, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Samuel M. Singer and Florian J. Bartosic, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Charles J. Barnhill and David L. Dickson, Chicago, Ill., and T.W. Madden, New York, N.Y., for respondent. Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and LUMBARD and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges. LUMBARD, Circuit Judge. The National Labor

  10. Henry L. Siegel Co. v. N.L.R.B

    328 F.2d 25 (2d Cir. 1964)   Cited 10 times
    In Henry L. Siegel v. NLRB, 328 F.2d 25 (2d Cir. 1964), we held that an employer violates § 8(a)(1) if he bludgeons his employees into furnishing copies of their statements.