10 Cited authorities
Labor Board v. Insurance Agents
361 U.S. 477 (1960) Cited 325 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"
American Federation of Television & Radio Artists v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
395 F.2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1968) Cited 102 times 1 Legal AnalysesApplying Taft
Grinnell Fire Protection Systems v. N.L.R.B
236 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2000) Cited 12 times 1 Legal AnalysesNoting that when, among other factors, a new negotiator was substituted, "the lack of a significant bargaining history would dictate giving the parties a fuller opportunity to effect an agreement than occurred here"
Continental Insurance Company v. N.L.R.B
495 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1974) Cited 27 timesIn Continental Insurance Co. v. NLRB, 495 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1974), a finding of bad faith was predicated in part on (1) the company's refusal to recognize the union as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative unless the union agreed not to organize or represent other company employees, (2) the company's insistence that arbitrators of grievances be picked exclusively by the company and (3) wage, vacation and severance pay proposals substantially less generous than the benefits provided to employees before the union was certified.
Restaurant Corp. of America v. N.L.R.B
827 F.2d 799 (D.C. Cir. 1987) Cited 11 timesNo. 85-1475. August 25, 1987. Marc B. Seidman, Atty., Robert E. Allen, Associate General Counsel, and Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate General Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were on respondent's petition for rehearing. Timothy J. O'Rourke, Marshall F. Berman and Michael A. Pace, Washington, D.C., were on petitioner's response to the petition for rehearing. Petition for Review and Cross-Petition for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before MIKVA and BORK, Circuit
Houchens Market of Elizabethtown v. N.L.R.B
375 F.2d 208 (6th Cir. 1967) Cited 28 timesIn Houchens, for example, the union initially told the employer that "any contract proposal or recommendation would be subject to approval by the employees."
N.L.R.B. v. Remodeling by Ottmanns, Inc.
719 F.2d 1420 (8th Cir. 1983) Cited 2 timesNo. 83-1178. Submitted October 12, 1983. Decided November 9, 1983. Nelson Harding, Roger J. Miller and Dale E. Bock, Omaha, Neb., for respondent. William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., William Wachter, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel, Ralph C. Simpson, Washington, D.C., for N.L.R.B. Appeal from the National Labor Relations Board. Before ROSS, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior
Movers Wrhsemen's Ass'n, Etc. v. N.L.R.B
550 F.2d 962 (4th Cir. 1977) Cited 4 timesHolding that because employers cannot insist on bargaining about permissive subjects, they "certainly ... may not so insist to the point of lockout the ultimate weapon in the labor relations arsenal"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.
444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971) Cited 3 times 3 Legal AnalysesNo. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second
National Lbr. R. Bd. v. George P. Pilling Son
119 F.2d 32 (3d Cir. 1941) Cited 26 timesIn National Labor Relations Board v. George P. Pilling Son Co. (119 F.2d 32) the court said, at page 37: "there must be common willingness among the parties to discuss freely and fully their respective claims and demands and, when these are opposed, to justify them on reason.