§

Golay & Co., Inc.

156 N.L.R.B. 1252 (N.L.R.B. 1966)
Golay & Co., Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. 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."

  2. 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

  3. Labor Board v. Fansteel Corp.

    306 U.S. 240 (1939)   Cited 281 times
    In Fansteel, the Board awarded reinstatement with backpay to employees who engaged in a "sit down strike" that led to confrontation with local law enforcement officials.

  4. 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

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Illinois Tool Works

    153 F.2d 811 (7th Cir. 1946)   Cited 47 times
    Noting that the test for violations of sec. 8, now codified as sec. 8, of the NLRA is whether "the employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act," and that actual or successful coercion need not be shown in order for the Board to find a violation

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Power Equipment Company

    313 F.2d 438 (6th Cir. 1963)   Cited 22 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Power Equipment Co., 6 Cir., 313 F.2d 438, employees came to work wearing bowling shirts upon which were placed an emblem of the union.

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc.

    318 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1963)   Cited 11 times

    No. 20081. June 7, 1963. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Hans J. Lehmann, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. L. Robert Frank, Tampa, Fla., for respondent. Before RIVES, LEWIS, and BELL, Circuit Judges. Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. GRIFFIN B. BELL, Circuit Judge. This case presents a novel question: May an employer with no discriminatory purpose prohibit the wearing of pins indicating union membership or status

  8. International Ladies' G.W.U. v. N.L.R.B

    237 F.2d 545 (D.C. Cir. 1956)   Cited 18 times

    Nos. 12511, 12585. Argued February 3, 1956. Decided May 3, 1956. Mr. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Morris P. Glushien, New York City, was on the brief, for petitioner in case No. 12511. Mr. Samuel H. Jaffee, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for petitioner in No. 12511. Mr. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, for respondent in case No. 12511, and petitioner in case No. 12585. Mr. Robert G. Johnson, Attorney, National Labor Relations

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Stackpole Carbon

    105 F.2d 167 (3d Cir. 1939)   Cited 36 times

    No. 6830. May 12, 1939. As Amended June 2, 1939. Rehearing Denied June 30, 1939. On Petition for the Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Petition by the National Labor Relations Board for the enforcement of an order of the Board against the Stackpole Carbon Company. Order enforced except for portions stricken therefrom. Charles Fahy, Gen. Counsel, Robert B. Watts, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Laurence A. Knapp, Robert S. Erdahl, and David McCalmont, Jr., Attys., all of Washington

  10. Rubin Bros. Footwear v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    203 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1953)   Cited 17 times
    In Rubin Bros. Footwear v. National Labor Relations Bd., 203 F.2d 486 (C.C.A. 5th), the Court said: "If anything is settled in labor law and under the act, we think it is that membership in a union does not guarantee the member against a discharge as such. It affords protection against discharge only where it is established that the discharge is because of union activity."