13 Cited authorities
Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.
312 U.S. 426 (1941) Cited 507 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"
Virginia Electric Co. v. Board
319 U.S. 533 (1943) Cited 328 times 1 Legal AnalysesEmphasizing that the Board's remedial power "is not limited to the illustrative example of one type of permissible affirmative order," such as backpay, and cautioning that the "particular means by which the effects of unfair labor practices are to be expunged are matters 'for the Board not the courts to determine'" (first citing Phelps Dodge, 313 U.S. at 187, 189; then quoting Machinists, 311 U.S. at 82)
I.A. of M. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 72 (1940) Cited 318 timesIn International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L. Ed. 50, there had been a long history of management favoritism to the established and hostility to the aspiring union; and in Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. 702, 703, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818, 88 L.Ed. 1020, the employer had "conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the union won the election."
Labor Board v. Burnup Sims
379 U.S. 21 (1964) Cited 106 times 21 Legal AnalysesFinding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"
Carpenters Local v. Labor Board
365 U.S. 651 (1961) Cited 84 timesNoting Board's authority is remedial, not punitive
Labor Board v. Mine Workers
355 U.S. 453 (1958) Cited 47 timesCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 64. Argued January 6, 1958. Decided February 3, 1958. The National Labor Relations Board found that an employer had committed an unfair labor practice by assisting a union to defeat the efforts of a rival union to organize the employer's workers, but that the assisted union was not dominated by the employer. It ordered the employer to post certain notices and to withdraw and withhold recognition from the assisted
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Remington Rand, Inc.
94 F.2d 862 (2d Cir. 1938) Cited 179 timesIn National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, 2 Cir., 94 F.2d 862, 869, the Board had ordered the employer to deal exclusively with a joint board which had brought the unfair labor practice charges involved in that case.
Amalgamated Local Union 355 v. N.L.R.B
481 F.2d 996 (2d Cir. 1973) Cited 27 timesNos. 703-705, Docket 72-1926, 72-2224, 72-2315. Argued February 14, 1973. Decided July 9, 1973. Harold Dublirer, New York City (Dublirer, Haydon Straci, New York City, of counsel), for Amalgamated Local Union 355. Leonard Leibowitz, New York City (Richard Dorn, and Sipser, Weinstock, Harper Dorn, New York City, of counsel), for Local 259, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America. Douglas S. McDowell, Washington, D.C. (Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate
N.L.R.B. v. United Mineral Chemical Corp.
391 F.2d 829 (2d Cir. 1968) Cited 14 timesIn United Mineral & Chemical Corp., the Second Circuit stated that the fact-finder could validly conclude based on witness testimony that the theft had not occurred. 391 F.2d at 833.
Department Store Food Corp. v. N.L.R.B
415 F.2d 74 (3d Cir. 1969) Cited 9 timesNos. 17413, 17476. Argued June 12, 1969. Decided September 10, 1969. Arnold T. Olena, Hodgson, Russ, Andrews, Woods Goodyear, Buffalo, N.Y., for Department Store Food Corp. of Pa. Joseph E. Finley, Metzenbaum, Gaines, Krupansky, Finley Stern, Cleveland, Ohio, for Retail Clerks International Assn., Local 1538, AFL-CIO. Angelo V. Arcadipane, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Leonard M. Wagman