Carlson Roofing Co., Inc.

7 Cited authorities

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"
American Ship Bldg. v. Labor Board
380 U.S. 300 (1965) Cited 350 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.
388 U.S. 26 (1967) Cited 322 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.
389 U.S. 375 (1967) Cited 233 times
In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.
Labor Board v. Sands Mfg. Co.
306 U.S. 332 (1939) Cited 139 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Sands Mfg. Co., 306 U.S. 332, 59 S.Ct. 508, 83 L.Ed. 682, affirming the ruling of this Court in 6 Cir., 96 F.2d 721, the Supreme Court held the employer justified in abandoning further negotiations with the Union when conditions showed the uselessness of continuing with them.
Lane v. N.L.R.B
418 F.2d 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1969) Cited 11 times
In Lane v. N.L.R.B., 418 F.2d 1208, 1209-12 (D.C. Cir. 1969), the Supreme Court's approach to § 8(a)(1) and § 8(a)(3) of the Act was described as being in a "state of flux".
N.L.R.B. v. David Friedland Painting Co.
377 F.2d 983 (3d Cir. 1967) Cited 5 times
No. 16032. Argued January 19, 1967. Decided April 25, 1967. Solomon Hirsh, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Peter M. Giesey, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, on the brief), for petitioner. Ernest Prupis, Elizabeth, N.J. (Weltchek Weltchek, Elizabeth, N.J., on the brief), for respondent. A.E. Robert Friedman, Brooklyn, N.Y., amicus curiae. Before HASTIE, GANEY and

Carlson Roofing Co., Inc.

7 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Brown

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"

American Ship Bldg. v. Labor Board

Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.

In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.

Labor Board v. Sands Mfg. Co.

In N.L.R.B. v. Sands Mfg. Co., 306 U.S. 332, 59 S.Ct. 508, 83 L.Ed. 682, affirming the ruling of this Court in 6 Cir., 96 F.2d 721, the Supreme Court held the employer justified in abandoning further negotiations with the Union when conditions showed the uselessness of continuing with them.

Lane v. N.L.R.B

In Lane v. N.L.R.B., 418 F.2d 1208, 1209-12 (D.C. Cir. 1969), the Supreme Court's approach to § 8(a)(1) and § 8(a)(3) of the Act was described as being in a "state of flux".

N.L.R.B. v. David Friedland Painting Co.