Carrizo Manufacturing Co., Inc.

25 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"
Labor Board v. Erie Resistor Corp.
373 U.S. 221 (1963) Cited 358 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"
Radio Officers v. Labor Board
347 U.S. 17 (1954) Cited 470 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.
369 U.S. 404 (1962) Cited 298 times
Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"
Interstate Circuit v. U.S.
306 U.S. 208 (1939) Cited 512 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding proof of an explicit agreement unnecessary to establish antitrust conspiracy among movie distributors where, "knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it"
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
Teamsters Local v. Labor Board
365 U.S. 667 (1961) Cited 174 times
Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria
N.L.R.B. v. Security Guard Service, Inc.
384 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1967) Cited 53 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing "the standard reluctance to apply [a statutory] exception broadly"
N.L.R.B. v. Dayton Motels, Inc.
474 F.2d 328 (6th Cir. 1973) Cited 23 times
In NLRB v. Dayton Motels, Inc., 474 F.2d 328 (6th Cir. 1973), the employer sought to defend refusal to bargain charges by showing that union authorization cards, obtained more than six months previously, were procured fraudulently.
Oil, Chemical Atomic Wkrs. v. N.L.R.B
445 F.2d 237 (D.C. Cir. 1971) Cited 22 times 1 Legal Analyses
Nos. 23295, 23300, 23750, 23751. Argued November 3, 1970. Decided May 27, 1971. Mr. Jerry D. Anker, Washington, D.C., for petitioner in Nos. 23,295 and 23,300. Mr. Marvin J. Martin, with whom Mr. W. Stanley Churchill, Wichita, Kan., was on the brief, for petitioner in Nos. 23,750 and 23,751 and intervenor in Nos. 23,295 and 23,300. Mr. Joseph E. Mayer, Atty. National Labor Relations Board, for respondent. Messrs. Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel

Carrizo Manufacturing Co., Inc.

25 Cited authorities

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"

Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"

Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

Holding proof of an explicit agreement unnecessary to establish antitrust conspiracy among movie distributors where, "knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it"

Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria

Recognizing "the standard reluctance to apply [a statutory] exception broadly"

In NLRB v. Dayton Motels, Inc., 474 F.2d 328 (6th Cir. 1973), the employer sought to defend refusal to bargain charges by showing that union authorization cards, obtained more than six months previously, were procured fraudulently.