Continental Chemical Co.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.

    309 U.S. 350 (1940)   Cited 315 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA
  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.

    360 U.S. 301 (1959)   Cited 106 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred
  3. Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board

    185 F.2d 732 (D.C. Cir. 1950)   Cited 162 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Joy Silk the Court held that when an employer could have no doubt as to the majority status or when an employer refuses recognition of a union "due to a desire to gain time and to take action to dissipate the union's majority, the refusal is no longer justifiable and constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain set forth in section 8(a)(5) of the Act".
  4. Bourne v. N.L.R.B

    332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964)   Cited 93 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.
  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kohler Company

    220 F.2d 3 (7th Cir. 1955)   Cited 30 times

    Nos. 11272, 11283. March 7, 1955. Rehearing Denied April 7, 1955. David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Irving M. Herman, Atty., George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Samuel M. Singer, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for National Labor Relations Board. William F. Howe, Washington, D.C., Lyman C. Conger, Edward J. Hammer, Kohler, Wis., Jerome Powell, Gall, Lane Howe, Washington, D.C., for Kohler Co. Max Raskin, Milwaukee, Wis., David Rabinovitz, Sheboygan

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Hotel Conquistador, Inc.

    398 F.2d 430 (9th Cir. 1968)   Cited 8 times
    Discussing the principle that additional allegations in an NLRB case must be "closely related" to those contained in the original charge for the NLRB to be able to resolve the new dispute
  7. National Labor Rel. Board v. Kropp Forge Co.

    178 F.2d 822 (7th Cir. 1950)   Cited 22 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Kropp Forge Co., 7 Cir., 178 F.2d 822, and in N.L.R.B. v. La Salle Steel Co., 7 Cir., 178 F.2d 829, our examination and consideration of the entire record in each of those cases convinced us that there was a general pattern and plan of anti-union hostility justifying the Board in finding that the particular words and acts complained of were coercive.
  8. Exber, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    390 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. 1968)   Cited 3 times

    No. 21362. March 5, 1968. Fredrick N. Richman (argued), Sidney R. Korshak, David H. Mendelsohn, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Harvey Letter (argued), Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Wayne S. Bishop, Joseph C. Thackery, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Roy O. Hoffman, Director N.L.R.B., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before CHAMBERS and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, District Judge. JAMESON, District Judge: This