Connection Foundry Co.
3 Cited authorities
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding 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.”
N.L.R.B. v. Miramar of California, Inc.
601 F.2d 422 (9th Cir. 1979) Cited 15 timesNo. 78-1419. July 24, 1979. Elliot Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Michael Messitte (argued), Washington, D.C., for the N.L.R.B. Jeffrey H. Nelson (argued), Nelson Nelson, Los Angeles, Cal., for Miramar of California, Inc. On Petition for Review and Enforcement of the Decision of the National Labor Relations Board. Before GOODWIN and TANG, Circuit Judges, and EAST, District Judge. Honorable William G. East, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation
N.L.R.B. v. Arrow Elastic Corp.
573 F.2d 702 (1st Cir. 1978) Cited 8 timesIn Arrow, we found substantial evidence to uphold the finding of the Board that a speech by the employer promising that a fixed pension plan would be added to the existing profit sharing program was a promise of benefits resulting in an unfair labor practice.