Frenchy's K & T

8 Cited authorities

SCM Corp. v. Advance Business Systems & Supply Co.
397 U.S. 920 (1970) Cited 200 times 5 Legal Analyses
Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances
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.”
Laidlaw Corporation v. N.L.R.B
414 F.2d 99 (7th Cir. 1969) Cited 81 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that while an employer is not obligated to discharge permanent replacements to make room for returning economic strikers, the employer must place the former strikers on a preferential recall list
N.L.R.B. v. Sky Wolf Sales
470 F.2d 827 (9th Cir. 1972) Cited 23 times
In Sky Wolf Sales, the employer's general manager, two non-union salesmen, and a warehouse foreman had assisted in circulating a decertification proceeding.
N.L.R.B. v. Magnusen
523 F.2d 643 (9th Cir. 1975) Cited 18 times
No. 74-1278. September 19, 1975. Howard Pearlstein, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mary Ellen Berke (argued), Van Nuys, Cal., for respondent. Petition for review from the NLRB. Before TRASK, WALLACE and KENNEDY. Circuit Judges. OPINION PER CURIAM: The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement, pursuant to section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(e), of an order of November 20, 1973, against Harry Magnusen d/b/a North Star Refrigerator Company.
Fort Smith Broadcasting Company v. N.L.R.B
341 F.2d 874 (8th Cir. 1965) Cited 23 times
No. 17669. March 4, 1965. Allen P. Roberts, of Bethell Pearce, Fort Smith, Ark., made argument and filed brief, for petitioner. Peter Giesey, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., made argument for respondent and filed brief with Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., and Elliott Moore, Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. Before VOGEL, VAN OOSTERHOUT and MEHAFFY, Circuit Judges
Trico Products Corporation v. N.L.R.B
489 F.2d 347 (2d Cir. 1973) Cited 11 times
Reserving the determination of when the employees would have been laid off for valid economic reasons for the compliance proceedings
Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge
Fed. R. Evid. 602 Cited 3,616 times 13 Legal Analyses
Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"

Frenchy's K & T

8 Cited authorities

Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances

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.”

Holding that while an employer is not obligated to discharge permanent replacements to make room for returning economic strikers, the employer must place the former strikers on a preferential recall list

In Sky Wolf Sales, the employer's general manager, two non-union salesmen, and a warehouse foreman had assisted in circulating a decertification proceeding.

Reserving the determination of when the employees would have been laid off for valid economic reasons for the compliance proceedings

Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"