Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,675 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 "
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"
Teamsters Local v. Labor Board
365 U.S. 667 (1961) Cited 174 times
Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria
N.L.R.B. v. Camco, Incorporated
340 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1965) Cited 76 times
Holding that knowledge of union activities could be inferred from the fact that an employer discharged eleven of sixteen union adherents without discharging any of its remaining seventy-four employees
N.L.R.B. v. Solo Cup Company
237 F.2d 521 (8th Cir. 1956) Cited 40 times
No. 15524. October 18, 1956. Rehearing Denied November 16, 1956. Samuel M. Singer, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were with him on the brief), for petitioner. John J. Hasburgh, Kansas City, Mo. (Carl E. Enggas and Watson S. Marshall Enggas, Kansas City, Mo., were with him on the brief), for respondent. Before WOODROUGH
N.L.R.B. v. Longhorn Transfer Service, Inc.
346 F.2d 1003 (5th Cir. 1965) Cited 25 times
No. 21347. June 15, 1965. Warren M. Davidson, Atty., N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Leo N. McGuire, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. James J. Loeffler, Houston, Tex., Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates Jaworski, Houston, Tex., of counsel, for respondent. Before HUTCHESON, BROWN and GEWIN, Circuit Judges. HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge. This is a proceeding to enforce an order
N.L.R.B. v. Symons Manufacturing Co.
328 F.2d 835 (7th Cir. 1964) Cited 22 times
No. 14305. March 4, 1964. Rehearing Denied April 1, 1964. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Gladys Kessler, Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Stephen B. Goldberg, Michael N. Sohn, Attorneys, N.L.R.B., for petitioner. John Harrington and Albert J. Smith, Chicago, Ill., for respondent. Before DUFFY and KNOCH, Circuit Judges, and MERCER, District Judge. DUFFY, Circuit Judge. National Labor Relations Board (Board) petitions
N.L.R.B. v. Great E. Color Lithographic Corp.
309 F.2d 352 (2d Cir. 1962) Cited 21 times
No. 53, Docket 27470. Argued October 19, 1962. Decided November 1, 1962. A. Brummel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallett-Prevost, Assistant General Counsel, and Melvin Pollack, Washington, D.C., on the brief) for petitioner. James E. Birdsall of Warner Birdsall, New York City, for respondent. Before WATERMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges. HAYS, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations
N.L.R.B. v. Associated Naval Architects, Inc.
355 F.2d 788 (4th Cir. 1966) Cited 17 times
In NLRB v. Associated Naval Architects, Inc., 355 F.2d 788, 791 (4th Cir. 1966), the court made clear that evidence of actually coercive statements was not necessary.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Jamestown Sterling
211 F.2d 725 (2d Cir. 1954) Cited 29 times
No. 170, Docket 22862. Argued March 9, 1954. Decided April 5, 1954. George J. Bott, David P. Findling, A. Norman Somers, Owsley Vose and Jean Engstrom, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Rogerson Hewes, J. Russell Rogerson, Jamestown, N.Y., for respondent. Before CLARK, MEDINA and HARLAN, Circuit Judges. MEDINA, Circuit Judge. This case involves a more or less typical controversy between employer and employees. In the week of July 7, 1952, following the shutdown of the plant in the Village of Falconer

Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

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

Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria

Holding that knowledge of union activities could be inferred from the fact that an employer discharged eleven of sixteen union adherents without discharging any of its remaining seventy-four employees

In NLRB v. Associated Naval Architects, Inc., 355 F.2d 788, 791 (4th Cir. 1966), the court made clear that evidence of actually coercive statements was not necessary.