§

Fiber Glass Systems, Inc.

278 N.L.R.B. 1255 (N.L.R.B. 1986)
Fiber Glass Systems, Inc.

6 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. Walton Mfg. Co.

    369 U.S. 404 (1962)   Cited 298 times
    Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

  3. Medline Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    593 F.2d 788 (7th Cir. 1979)   Cited 18 times
    In Medline Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 593 F.2d 788, 795 (7th Cir. 1979), we described "extraordinary circumstances" as a "complete disregard for sworn testimony, coupled with a tongue in cheek characterization of those utterances."

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Roney Plaza Apartments

    597 F.2d 1046 (5th Cir. 1979)   Cited 16 times
    Stating that a disciplinary action cannot stand where the primary justification for it is based on an unlawful rule

  5. N.L.R.B. v. J.M. Machinery Corporation

    410 F.2d 587 (5th Cir. 1969)   Cited 13 times

    No. 23756. April 9, 1969. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Solomon I. Hirsh, Robert S. Hillman, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Jesse S. Hogg, John W. Boult, Fowler, White, Collins, Gillen, Humkey Trenam, Tampa, Fla., for respondent. Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and COLEMAN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges. SIMPSON, Circuit Judge: In November of 1964, ten of fourteen employees of J.M. Machinery

  6. Schwarzenbach-Huber Company v. N.L.R.B

    408 F.2d 236 (2d Cir. 1969)   Cited 13 times
    In The Schwarzenbach-Huber Company v. National Labor Relations Board etc., 408 F.2d 236 (CA-2), the court held that a speech made by the president of the company to the employees and a letter written to them by him shortly before the election did not constitute violations of Sec. 8(a)(1) and Sec. 8(c), as had been found by the Board.