§

H. & H Plastics Mfg, Co.

158 N.L.R.B. 1395 (N.L.R.B. 1966)
H. & H Plastics Mfg, Co.

19 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 710 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. Machinists Local v. Labor Board

    362 U.S. 411 (1960)   Cited 276 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely

  3. Labor Board v. Cabot Carbon Co.

    360 U.S. 203 (1959)   Cited 57 times
    Concluding that "dealing with" as used in 29 U.S.C. § 152 is a "broad term" and is not synonymous to "bargaining with"

  4. Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board

    185 F.2d 732 (D.C. Cir. 1950)   Cited 162 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Joy Silk the Court held that when an employer could have no doubt as to the majority status or when an employer refuses recognition of a union "due to a desire to gain time and to take action to dissipate the union's majority, the refusal is no longer justifiable and constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain set forth in section 8(a)(5) of the Act".

  5. Jas. H. Matthews Co. v. N.L.R.B

    354 F.2d 432 (8th Cir. 1966)   Cited 54 times
    In James H. Matthews Co., supra, the employee in question signed an authorization card. Later the union received a letter, postmarked 11 days after the effective date for determining majority status of the union, requesting return of the employee's authorization card. Allegedly, the letter was neither written, dated, nor addressed by the employee and was originally left with an undisclosed person.

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Cumberland Shoe Corporation

    351 F.2d 917 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 49 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Cumberland we emphasized that "In no instance did any employee testify that he was told that the election was the only purpose of the card."

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sharples Chemicals

    209 F.2d 645 (6th Cir. 1954)   Cited 44 times
    In NLRB v. Sharples Chemicals, Inc., 209 F.2d 645 (6th Cir. 1954), the respondent had submitted 53 proposed findings to the NLRB. Of such findings 20 were accepted by the Board and remainder rejected.

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Delight Bakery, Inc.

    353 F.2d 344 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 25 times

    No. 16091. December 3, 1965. Elliott Moore, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Allen M. Hutter, Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief, for petitioner. Jack R. Clary, Grand Rapids, Mich., Warner, Norcross Judd, by Thomas McNamara, Grand Rapids, Mich., on brief, for respondent. Before EDWARDS and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge. EDWARDS, Circuit

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Gotham Shoe Manufacturing Co.

    359 F.2d 684 (2d Cir. 1966)   Cited 21 times

    No. 121, Docket 29793. Argued November 3, 1965. Decided January 14, 1966. Harold B. Shore, Atty., National Labor Relations Board (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel and Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Samuel K. Levene, Binghamton, N.Y. (David Levene, Levene, Gouldin Thompson, Binghamton, N.Y., of counsel), for respondent. Before KAUFMAN and HAYS, Circuit

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Prince Macaroni Manufacturing Co.

    329 F.2d 803 (1st Cir. 1964)   Cited 22 times

    No. 6171. March 31, 1964. Allison W. Brown, Jr., Attorney, Washington, D.C., with whom Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Stuart Broad, Attorney, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for petitioner. William F. Joy, Boston, Mass., with whom John J. Desmond, III, and Morgan, Brown, Kearns Joy, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for respondent. Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.