Dandridge Textile, Inc.

6 Cited authorities

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.”
N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 357 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
Waterman Steamship v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
401 U.S. 939 (1971) Cited 120 times
C.A. 5th Circuit. No. 1085. March 1, 1971. Reported below: 430 F.2d 1185. Certiorari denied.
Labor Board v. Electrical Workers
346 U.S. 464 (1953) Cited 125 times 41 Legal Analyses
Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute
Belcher Towing Co. v. N.L.R.B
614 F.2d 88 (5th Cir. 1980) Cited 13 times
In Belcher Towing Co., 256 N.L.R.B. at 667, the Board wrote that "[d]irect personal contact is the most truly effective means of communicating... the option of collective bargaining....
N.L.R.B. v. Southwire Company
429 F.2d 1050 (5th Cir. 1970) Cited 12 times
Nos. 20008, 21784. July 27, 1970. Rehearing Denied and Rehearing En Banc Denied October 28, 1970. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel Paul Elkind, J.L.A. de Passalacqua, Solomon I. Hirsch, Alfred Brummell, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Swift, Currie, McGhee Hiers, Frank M. Swift, Albert E. Phillips, Walter O. Lambeth, Jr., David M. Vaughan, Atlanta, Ga., for respondents. Before SIMPSON, MORGAN and

Dandridge Textile, Inc.

6 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Parts Co.

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.”

N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

Waterman Steamship v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Labor Board v. Electrical Workers

Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute

Belcher Towing Co. v. N.L.R.B

In Belcher Towing Co., 256 N.L.R.B. at 667, the Board wrote that "[d]irect personal contact is the most truly effective means of communicating... the option of collective bargaining....

N.L.R.B. v. Southwire Company