§

Chicago Rivet & Machine Co.

275 N.L.R.B. 1298 (N.L.R.B. 1985)
Chicago Rivet & Machine Co.

5 Cited authorities

  1. Hendrix Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B

    321 F.2d 100 (5th Cir. 1963)   Cited 91 times
    Permitting the Board to consider the employer's clear expression of opposition to the union as background in order to determine motivation for management's conduct

  2. Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966)   Cited 56 times
    Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Industrial Erectors, Inc.

    712 F.2d 1131 (7th Cir. 1983)   Cited 16 times
    Shifting explanation for discharge is evidence of unlawful motive

  4. International Un., United A., A. v. N.L.R.B

    363 F.2d 702 (D.C. Cir. 1966)   Cited 34 times
    Rejecting argument NLRB used section 8(c) protected statements as "as some evidence of the unfair labor practices themselves" and concluding statements were used only to "place . . . other acts in context"

  5. W.T. Grant Company v. N.L.R.B

    337 F.2d 447 (7th Cir. 1964)   Cited 6 times

    No. 14385. September 25, 1964. Prentice H. Marshall, Chicago, Ill., A.V. Federle, Jr., New York City, Raymond, Mayer, Jenner Block, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for petitioner. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Atty., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Leonard M. Wagman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before DUFFY, SCHNACKENBERG and KILEY, Circuit Judges. DUFFY, Circuit Judge. W.T. Grant Company (Grant) seeks review of