Casey Manufacturing Co.

7 Cited authorities

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.”
Labor Board v. Reliance Fuel Corp.
371 U.S. 224 (1963) Cited 133 times
In Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., the Board found that Reliance Fuel Oil Corp. ("Reliance"), a New York corporation engaged in the business of selling fuel oil for heating purposes and servicing oil burners and boilers, was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the NLRA because it had "purchased a substantial amount of fuel oil from Gulf, a company concededly engaged in interstate commerce."
N.L.R.B. v. Flomatic Corporation
347 F.2d 74 (2d Cir. 1965) Cited 50 times
In NLRB v. Flomatic Corp., 347 F.2d 74, 76-77 (2 Cir. 1965), this court held that various promises of benefits and an invitation to deal directly with the company violated § 8(a)(1).
Welch Scientific Company v. N.L.R.B
340 F.2d 199 (2d Cir. 1965) Cited 24 times
In Welch Scientific Co. v. NLRB, 340 F.2d 199 (2 Cir. 1965), neither the Trial Examiner's report nor the Board's decision referred to the three-fold criteria, and the Board's brief in this court sought to justify the order as to interrogation only on the basis of lack of any proper purpose.
Corrie Corporation of Charleston v. N.L.R.B
375 F.2d 149 (4th Cir. 1967) Cited 17 times
Finding employer's statement was not protected in light of other circumstances that made statement coercive
J.S. Dillon Sons Stores Co. v. N.L.R.B
338 F.2d 395 (10th Cir. 1964) Cited 13 times
No. 7608. November 25, 1964. William G. Haynes, of Lillard, Eidson, Lewis Porter, Topeka, Kan. (O.B. Eidson, Philip H. Lewis, James W. Porter, Charles S. Fisher, Jr., Peter F. Caldwell, Roscoe E. Long, R. Austin Nothern and Brock R. Snyder, Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for petitioner. Anthony J. Obadal, Attorney, N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B. and Elliott Moore, Attorney, N.L.R
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,092 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

Casey Manufacturing Co.

7 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Parts Co.

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.”

Labor Board v. Reliance Fuel Corp.

N.L.R.B. v. Flomatic Corporation

In NLRB v. Flomatic Corp., 347 F.2d 74, 76-77 (2 Cir. 1965), this court held that various promises of benefits and an invitation to deal directly with the company violated § 8(a)(1).

Welch Scientific Company v. N.L.R.B

In Welch Scientific Co. v. NLRB, 340 F.2d 199 (2 Cir. 1965), neither the Trial Examiner's report nor the Board's decision referred to the three-fold criteria, and the Board's brief in this court sought to justify the order as to interrogation only on the basis of lack of any proper purpose.

Corrie Corporation of Charleston v. N.L.R.B

Finding employer's statement was not protected in light of other circumstances that made statement coercive

J.S. Dillon Sons Stores Co. v. N.L.R.B

Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"