369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
Holding that courts must not "substitute [their] judgment for those of the Board with respect to the issues that Congress intended the Board should resolve"
Concluding employer entitled to judgment as matter of law where employee offered no evidence of number and types of positions available in local job market that did not require heavy or medium lifting
Holding that the replacements were temporary because, although the replacements were told that "if they worked out and did their job, they had a job," the testimony of the replacements indicated that they did not understand themselves to be permanent employees