Central Dispatch Inc.

10 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,036 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 712 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"
Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.
351 U.S. 149 (1956) Cited 223 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith
Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board
321 U.S. 702 (1944) Cited 252 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.
N.L.R.B. v. P. Lorillard Co.
314 U.S. 512 (1942) Cited 76 times
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 71. Argued December 18, 19, 1941. Decided January 5, 1942. Whether an employer should be required to bargain with a union previously selected as employees' bargaining representative or, in view of lapse of time and changed conditions, a new election should be held is a question for decision by the Board and not by the Circuit Court of Appeals. P. 513. 117 F.2d 921, reversed. CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 557, to review a judgment entered
N.L.R.B. v. Sitton Tank Company
467 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1972) Cited 2 times
No. 72-1065. Submitted September 15, 1972. Decided October 16, 1972. Herbert S. Dawidoff, Atty., N.L.R.B., St. Louis, Mo., Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Joseph H. Solien, Regional Director, Gerard P. Fleischut, Regional Atty., N.L.R.B., for petitioner. Donald J. Meyer, Clayton, Mo., for respondent. Before BRIGHT and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and TALBOT SMITH, District Judge. Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. PER CURIAM. Sitton Tank Co
Amsterdam W. S. Co v. L. 294, Int. Bro. of T
472 F.2d 153 (2d Cir. 1973)
Nos. 302, 303, Dockets 72-1503, 72-1702. Argued January 9, 1973. Decided January 11, 1973. Richard T. Horigan, Amsterdam, N.Y., for petitioner. Richard A. Cohen (Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Elliott Moore, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C.), for respondent National Labor Relations Board. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before LUMBARD, KAUFMAN and MANSFIELD, Circuit
N.L.R.B. v. Medley Distilling Co.
453 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1971)
No. 71-1385. December 20, 1971. Eugene B. Granof, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Eugene G. Goslee, Acting Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Madge F. Jefferson, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Joseph A. Yocum, Evansville, Ind., for respondent; Arthur R. Donovan, Evansville, Ind., on brief; Kahn, Dees, Donovan Kahn, Evansville, Ind., of counsel. Herbert L. Segal, Louisville, Ky., for intervenor; Irwin H. Cutler
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co.
120 F.2d 532 (4th Cir. 1941) Cited 15 times
No. 4770. June 10, 1941. On Petition for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Petition by the National Labor Relations Board to enforce its order against the Entwistle Manufacturing Company. Order modified and enforced. Walter B. Wilbur, of Washington, D.C., Atty., National Labor Relations Board (Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, Laurence A. Knapp, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ernest A. Gross, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Sylvester Garrett, and William Stix, all of Washington, D.C., Attys
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,104 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"

Central Dispatch Inc.

10 Cited authorities

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

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 the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.

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"