D & C Textile Corp.

8 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,035 times 67 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 711 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. Walton Mfg. Co.
369 U.S. 404 (1962) Cited 298 times
Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"
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.”
Dyer v. MacDougall
201 F.2d 265 (2d Cir. 1952) Cited 321 times
Holding that witness demeanor may persuade a jury to "assume the truth of what he denied," but a court cannot allow a case to go to the jury on such evidence
Mine Workers v. Arkansas Flooring Co.
351 U.S. 62 (1956) Cited 79 times
In United Mine Workers v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co., 351 U.S. 62, 76 S.Ct. 559, 100 L. Ed. 941, references to postlegislative history were referred to in the opinion of the Court.
Snow v. N.L.R.B
308 F.2d 687 (9th Cir. 1962) Cited 30 times
In Snow, both the employer and the Union chose the clergyman who ran the check and he compared signatures, not just names.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Quest-Shon Mark B
185 F.2d 285 (2d Cir. 1950) Cited 18 times
No. 17, Docket 21624. Argued October 4, 1950. Decided November 9, 1950. Owsley Vose, Washington, D.C., Atty., National Labor Relations Board (David P. Findling, Asso. Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and George H. Plaut, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Adolph I. King, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard P. Walsh, Washington, D.C., and Angelo A. Tumminelli, Brooklyn, N.Y., on the brief), for respondent. Before LEARNED HAND, Chief

D & C Textile Corp.

8 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"

Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

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.”

Holding that witness demeanor may persuade a jury to "assume the truth of what he denied," but a court cannot allow a case to go to the jury on such evidence

In United Mine Workers v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co., 351 U.S. 62, 76 S.Ct. 559, 100 L. Ed. 941, references to postlegislative history were referred to in the opinion of the Court.

In Snow, both the employer and the Union chose the clergyman who ran the check and he compared signatures, not just names.