§

Golden Eagle Spotting Co.

319 N.L.R.B. 64 (N.L.R.B. 1995)
Golden Eagle Spotting Co.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 712 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. Insurance Agents

    361 U.S. 477 (1960)   Cited 325 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"

  3. American Federation of Television & Radio Artists v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    395 F.2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1968)   Cited 103 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying Taft

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Overnite Transp. Co.

    938 F.2d 815 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that employer engaged in surface bargaining despite the fact employer had attended six bargaining sessions with union, commented on proposals, offered counterproposals, and maintained bargaining stance that had at least some merit, because vice president of employer expressly stated that employer would not sign contract with union, openly threatened to shut down terminal in order to defeat union, and implied that employer would force strike situation and permanently dismiss those employees who left to join picket lines

  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. Little Rock Downtowner, Inc.

    341 F.2d 1020 (8th Cir. 1965)   Cited 5 times

    Nos. 17581, 17615. March 5, 1965. Peter M. Giesey, Atty., N.L.R.B. made argument for petitioner and filed brief with Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel and Lee M. Modjeska, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. William E. Fortas and Earl W. DeHart, of Fowler, Fortas DeHart, Newell N. Fowler, Memphis, Tenn., made argument for respondent and filed brief. Before VAN OOSTERHOUT and MEHAFFY, Circuit