Gossen Co.

33 Cited authorities

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,674 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
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"
Radio Officers v. Labor Board
347 U.S. 17 (1954) Cited 470 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
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"
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.”
Braswell v. Wainwright
463 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir. 1972) Cited 71 times
Holding that trial court's discretionary exclusion off sole corroborating witness' testimony denied defendant fundamental constitutional right
United States v. Schaefer
299 F.2d 625 (7th Cir. 1962) Cited 81 times
In Schaefer, the federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit interpreted Holder as meaning that a trial court "may not disqualify the witness merely because he disobeys the rule but that this alternative is available if particular circumstances are shown.... [W]e interpret these particular circumstances to mean some indication the witness was in court with `the consent, connivance, procurement or knowledge of the appellant or his counsel.
Holder v. United States
150 U.S. 91 (1893) Cited 180 times
Noting that the trial court had discretion to exclude the testimony of a witness who had not obeyed an exclusion order
United States v. Torbert
496 F.2d 154 (9th Cir. 1974) Cited 43 times
Holding that non-random assignment of a case did not violate due process, particularly because there was no showing of actual prejudice resulting from the procedural irregularity
Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966) Cited 56 times
Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination

Gossen Co.

33 Cited authorities

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

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

Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

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"

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 trial court's discretionary exclusion off sole corroborating witness' testimony denied defendant fundamental constitutional right

Noting that the trial court had discretion to exclude the testimony of a witness who had not obeyed an exclusion order

Holding that non-random assignment of a case did not violate due process, particularly because there was no showing of actual prejudice resulting from the procedural irregularity

Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination