Franke's, Inc.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 710 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
  2. Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.

    356 U.S. 342 (1958)   Cited 296 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under ยง 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."
  3. Labor Board v. Reliance Fuel Corp.

    371 U.S. 224 (1963)   Cited 133 times
    In Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., the Board found that Reliance Fuel Oil Corp. ("Reliance"), a New York corporation engaged in the business of selling fuel oil for heating purposes and servicing oil burners and boilers, was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the NLRA because it had "purchased a substantial amount of fuel oil from Gulf, a company concededly engaged in interstate commerce."
  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Remington Rand, Inc.

    94 F.2d 862 (2d Cir. 1938)   Cited 178 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, 2 Cir., 94 F.2d 862, 869, the Board had ordered the employer to deal exclusively with a joint board which had brought the unfair labor practice charges involved in that case.
  5. Northern Virginia Steel Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    300 F.2d 168 (4th Cir. 1962)   Cited 21 times

    No. 8450. Argued January 8, 1962. Decided March 13, 1962. Henry St. J. FitzGerald, Arlington, Va. (Tolbert, Lewis FitzGerald, Arlington, Va., on the brief), for petitioner. Hans J. Lehmann, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Samuel M. Singer, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent. Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and BRYAN and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges

  6. N.L.R.B. v. New England Tank Industries, Inc.

    302 F.2d 273 (1st Cir. 1962)   Cited 15 times
    In New England Tank, which was essentially a discriminatory refusal to hire 49 of a predecessor's work force, the company had already offered three predecessor employees employment and the offer of employment had been accepted.