Garwin Corp.

34 Cited authorities

Edison Co. v. Labor Board
305 U.S. 197 (1938) Cited 19,576 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay
John Wiley Sons v. Livingston
376 U.S. 543 (1964) Cited 1,776 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement survived a corporate merger and bound the resulting corporation
Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board
379 U.S. 203 (1964) Cited 734 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board
313 U.S. 177 (1941) Cited 874 times
Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”
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"
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
Labor Board v. Seven-Up Co.
344 U.S. 344 (1953) Cited 368 times
Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding
Textile Workers v. Darlington Co.
380 U.S. 263 (1965) Cited 168 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer has the absolute right, at least as far as the NLRA is concerned, to terminate his entire business for any reason
Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board
321 U.S. 702 (1944) Cited 252 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.
Southport Pet., Co. v. N.L.R.B
315 U.S. 100 (1942) Cited 187 times
Ruling that dissolution of company and transfer of assets did not prevent enforcement of a Board order

Garwin Corp.

34 Cited authorities

Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

Holding that a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement survived a corporate merger and bound the resulting corporation

Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

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"

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding

Holding that an employer has the absolute right, at least as far as the NLRA is concerned, to terminate his entire business for any reason

Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.

Ruling that dissolution of company and transfer of assets did not prevent enforcement of a Board order