Electrical Manufacturing Co.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.

    351 U.S. 149 (1956)   Cited 223 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith
  2. Curtiss-Wright, Wright Aero. Div. v. N.L.R.B

    347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965)   Cited 55 times
    Noting the Board has "considerable leeway in amplifying or expanding certain details not specifically set forth in the complaint if they accord with the general substance of the complaint"
  3. Timken Roller Bearing Company v. N.L.R.B

    325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963)   Cited 56 times
    In Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 971, 84 S.Ct. 1135, 12 L.Ed.2d 85 (1964), the court considered a union request for information concerning five grievances that awaited hearings before a chosen arbitrator.
  4. Fafnir Bearing Company v. N.L.R.B

    362 F.2d 716 (2d Cir. 1966)   Cited 24 times
    Relying upon the “clear and unmistakable waiver” rule
  5. NLRB v. Item Co.

    220 F.2d 956 (5th Cir. 1955)   Cited 36 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Item Company, 220 F.2d 956 (5th Cir. 1955), this court held that an employer had no confidentiality privilege to withhold from the union relevant wage data, "which the union's own employee-members apparently refused to disclose to it."
  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Yawman & Erbe Mfg. Co.

    187 F.2d 947 (2d Cir. 1951)   Cited 34 times

    No. 107, Docket 21789. Argued February 7, 1951. Decided March 28, 1951. George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, Frederick U. Reel and Raymond M. Norton, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Nixon, Hargrave, Middleton Devans, Rochester, N.Y., for respondent; Arthur L. Stern and William H. Morris, Rochester, N Y, of counsel. Before L. HAND, Chief Judge, and SWAN and FRANK,

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Celotex Corporation

    364 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1966)   Cited 13 times
    In Celotex, for example, the court enforced a Board order finding that an employer had pleaded inability to pay when it insisted that concessions were necessary to make its "plant competitive and to insure that plant's survival," 364 F.2d at 553 (emphasis added), and not solely on the basis of a claim of competitive disadvantage. Indeed, the trial examiner found that the bargaining between the parties had taken place in the context of what wage rate the plant " could afford."
  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Whitin Mach. Works

    217 F.2d 593 (4th Cir. 1954)   Cited 25 times

    No. 6883. November 18, 1954. Decided December 8, 1954. Frederick U. Reel, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, and James A. Ryan, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner. Whiteford S. Blakeney, Charlotte, N.C. (Pierce Blakeney, Charlotte, N.C., on brief), for respondent. Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This is a petition by the National Labor

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Perkins Machine Company

    326 F.2d 488 (1st Cir. 1964)   Cited 14 times

    No. 6182. January 23, 1964. Peter M. Giesey, Washington, D.C., Atty., with whom Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Solomon I. Hirsh, Washington, D.C., Atty., were on brief, for petitioner. John H. Goewey, Worcester, Mass., with whom James S. Gratton and Bowditch, Gowetz Lane, Worcester, Mass., were on brief, for respondent. Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Respondent

  10. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    223 F.2d 58 (1st Cir. 1955)   Cited 23 times

    No. 4915. June 6, 1955. Frank W. Crocker, Boston, Mass., with whom Levin H. Campbell, III, and Ropes, Gray, Best, Coolidge Rugg, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for petitioner. Elizabeth W. Weston, Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and William J. Avrutis, Atty., Washington, D.C., were on brief, for respondent. Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges. MAGRUDER, Chief Judge. Petitioner