§
Hayes Express

7 Cited authorities

  1. Radio Officers v. Labor Board

    347 U.S. 17 (1954)   Cited 471 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

  2. Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.

    312 U.S. 426 (1941)   Cited 507 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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"

  3. 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

  4. Virginia Electric Co. v. Board

    319 U.S. 533 (1943)   Cited 328 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Emphasizing 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)

  5. Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.

    309 U.S. 350 (1940)   Cited 318 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA

  6. National Labor Rel. Board v. Baltimore T. Co.

    140 F.2d 51 (4th Cir. 1944)   Cited 57 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Baltimore T. Co., 4 Cir., 140 F.2d 51, the court alluded with apparent approval to the fact that the Board had endeavored to avoid making its sanctions operate retroactively.

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sterling Fur. Co.

    202 F.2d 41 (9th Cir. 1953)   Cited 4 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Sterling Furniture Co., 202 F.2d 41 (9 Cir., 1953) this Court in response to the argument of the Board that an order could not be issued against an association which had voluntarily appeared, but had not by amendment of the complaint been made a party, stated that the Board's position was not based upon considerations having to do with vindication of the policy of the Act, but on assumed procedural difficulties which had no merit in light of the Board's amendatory powers.