§

F. W. Woolworth Co.

188 N.L.R.B. 941 (N.L.R.B. 1971)
F. W. Woolworth Co.

5 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. 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.”

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Magnesium Casting Company

    427 F.2d 114 (1st Cir. 1970)   Cited 26 times

    No. 7462. May 21, 1970. Abigail Cooley Baskir, Washington, D.C., Attorney, with whom Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Marshall F. Berman, Washington, D.C., Attorney, were on the brief, for petitioner. Jerome H. Somers, Boston, Mass., with whom Louis Chandler and Stoneman Chandler, Boston, Mass., were on the brief, for respondent. Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, COFFIN, Circuit Judge, and BOWNES, District Judge. COFFIN

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Delight Bakery, Inc.

    353 F.2d 344 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 25 times

    No. 16091. December 3, 1965. Elliott Moore, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Allen M. Hutter, Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief, for petitioner. Jack R. Clary, Grand Rapids, Mich., Warner, Norcross Judd, by Thomas McNamara, Grand Rapids, Mich., on brief, for respondent. Before EDWARDS and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge. EDWARDS, Circuit

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Larry Faul Oldsmobile Co.

    316 F.2d 595 (7th Cir. 1963)   Cited 11 times
    In Faul, a manager's statement that "he might as well as throw the place up for grabs" was made in response to a direct question as to the future of the company by an employee who had already been discharged. Under those circumstances, the court determined that the statement could not in any sense be interpreted as a threat against unionization to current employees.