East Coast, Equipment Corp.

5 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. 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.”
Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.
370 U.S. 9 (1962) Cited 206 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections
N.L.R.B. v. United Mineral Chemical Corp.
391 F.2d 829 (2d Cir. 1968) Cited 14 times
In United Mineral & Chemical Corp., the Second Circuit stated that the fact-finder could validly conclude based on witness testimony that the theft had not occurred. 391 F.2d at 833.
National Labor Board v. Glen Raven Silk Mills
203 F.2d 946 (4th Cir. 1953) Cited 1 times
No. 6575. Argued April 9, 1953. Decided May 6, 1953. Edward D. Friedman, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, and John Francis Lawless, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Whiteford S. Blakeney, Charlotte, N.C. (William E. Anglin, Burnsville, N.C., and Pierce Blakeney, Charlotte, N.C., on the

East Coast, Equipment Corp.

5 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

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.”

Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.

Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

N.L.R.B. v. United Mineral Chemical Corp.

In United Mineral & Chemical Corp., the Second Circuit stated that the fact-finder could validly conclude based on witness testimony that the theft had not occurred. 391 F.2d at 833.

National Labor Board v. Glen Raven Silk Mills