Fraley & Schilling, Inc.

24 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,036 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Labor Board
350 U.S. 270 (1956) Cited 403 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"
Packard Co. v. Labor Board
330 U.S. 485 (1947) Cited 382 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Board determinations of unit issues involves a "large measure of informed discretion."
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
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Reed Prince MFG
205 F.2d 131 (1st Cir. 1953) Cited 118 times
In Reed Prince, supra, this court affirmed the Board's finding of refusal to bargain in good faith only "[a]fter an attentive review of the entire record of the bargaining negotiations."
Local 833, Uaw-Afl-Cio, Etc. v. N.L.R.B
300 F.2d 699 (D.C. Cir. 1962) Cited 40 times
Nos. 15961, 16031, 16182. Argued September 11, 1961. Decided January 26, 1962. Certiorari Denied June 4, 1962. See 82 S.Ct. 1258. Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D.C., and Mr. Louis H. Pollak, New Haven, Conn., of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. John Silard, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for Local 833, UAW-AFL-CIO, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, petitioner
N.L.R.B. v. Elliott-Williams Co.
345 F.2d 460 (7th Cir. 1965) Cited 33 times
Striking down as overbroad a portion of an order that enjoined an employer from "in any other manner" interfering with its employees' organizational and bargaining rights
N.L.R.B. v. Trumbull Asphalt Co. of Delaware
327 F.2d 841 (8th Cir. 1964) Cited 31 times
Holding that "[t]he fact of discharge . . . does not depend on the use of formal words of firing. It is sufficient if the words or actions of the employer 'would logically lead a prudent person to believe his tenure had been terminated.'"
N.L.R.B. v. City Yellow Cab Company
344 F.2d 575 (6th Cir. 1965) Cited 26 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that at times where no representatives of management were present, switch-board operators were not supervisors in part because company officers were at all times reachable by phone
N.L.R.B. v. Longhorn Transfer Service, Inc.
346 F.2d 1003 (5th Cir. 1965) Cited 25 times
No. 21347. June 15, 1965. Warren M. Davidson, Atty., N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Leo N. McGuire, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. James J. Loeffler, Houston, Tex., Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates Jaworski, Houston, Tex., of counsel, for respondent. Before HUTCHESON, BROWN and GEWIN, Circuit Judges. HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge. This is a proceeding to enforce an order
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,106 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

Fraley & Schilling, Inc.

24 Cited authorities

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

Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"

Holding that Board determinations of unit issues involves a "large measure of informed discretion."

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

In Reed Prince, supra, this court affirmed the Board's finding of refusal to bargain in good faith only "[a]fter an attentive review of the entire record of the bargaining negotiations."

Striking down as overbroad a portion of an order that enjoined an employer from "in any other manner" interfering with its employees' organizational and bargaining rights

Holding that "[t]he fact of discharge . . . does not depend on the use of formal words of firing. It is sufficient if the words or actions of the employer 'would logically lead a prudent person to believe his tenure had been terminated.'"

Stating that at times where no representatives of management were present, switch-board operators were not supervisors in part because company officers were at all times reachable by phone

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"