Gerig's Dump Trucking

5 Cited authorities

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"
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.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.
360 U.S. 301 (1959) Cited 106 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred
Linden Lumber Division, Summer & Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
419 U.S. 301 (1974) Cited 55 times 12 Legal Analyses
Recognizing "that while the election process has acknowledged superiority in ascertaining whether a union has majority support, [signed employee authorization] cards may adequately reflect employee sentiment"
Lotus Suites, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
32 F.3d 588 (D.C. Cir. 1994) Cited 7 times
Denying enforcement where the charge contained only a "boilerplate allegation that the Employer violated § 8 and [was] utterly lacking in factual specificity"

Gerig's Dump Trucking

5 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

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

Labor Board v. Parts Co.

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.”

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.

Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred

Linden Lumber Division, Summer & Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

Recognizing "that while the election process has acknowledged superiority in ascertaining whether a union has majority support, [signed employee authorization] cards may adequately reflect employee sentiment"

Lotus Suites, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

Denying enforcement where the charge contained only a "boilerplate allegation that the Employer violated § 8 and [was] utterly lacking in factual specificity"