Heck's, Inc.

20 Cited authorities

Mine Workers v. Arkansas Flooring Co.
351 U.S. 62 (1956) Cited 79 times
In United Mine Workers v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co., 351 U.S. 62, 76 S.Ct. 559, 100 L. Ed. 941, references to postlegislative history were referred to in the opinion of the Court.
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".
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. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
341 F.2d 750 (6th Cir. 1965) Cited 62 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 341 F.2d 750 (6 Cir. 1965), the court granted enforcement of the Board's order finding the requests for copies of statements to be a violation of Section 8(a)(1).
Daniel Construction Company v. N.L.R.B
341 F.2d 805 (4th Cir. 1965) Cited 36 times
In Daniel Construction Co. v. N.L.R.B., 341 F.2d 805, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 831, 86 S.Ct. 70, 15 L.Ed.2d 75 (1965), this court considered the identical question presented here. The Board, having found that the company had violated section 8(a) (1) during the course of an election campaign and that such conduct had interfered with the employees' free choice, set the election aside, and ordered that a new election be held. The company sought review of both matters in this court.
N.L.R.B. v. Heck's Inc.
386 F.2d 317 (4th Cir. 1967) Cited 23 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Heck's, Inc., 386 F.2d 317, 322 (4th Cir. 1967), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals explained the rationale behind not allowing "supervisors" to solicit signatures on union authorization cards.
N.L.R.B. v. Lexington Chair Company
361 F.2d 283 (4th Cir. 1966) Cited 24 times
No. 10000. Argued November 4, 1965. Decided May 6, 1966. Allen M. Hutter, Atty., N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Glen M. Bendixsen, Atty., N.L.R.B., on brief), for petitioner. R.D. Douglas, Jr., Greensboro, N.C. (Douglas, Ravenel, Josey Hardy, Greensboro, N.C., on brief), for respondent. Before SOBELOFF and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and MICHIE, District Judge. MICHIE, District Judge. This case comes before
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. W. Coast Casket Co.
205 F.2d 902 (9th Cir. 1953) Cited 37 times
No. 13515. June 30, 1953. Rehearing Denied July 29, 1953. George J. Bott, Gen. Coun., David P. Findling, Asso. Gen. Coun., A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Coun., Frederick U. Reel and Rosanna A. Blake, Attorneys, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. James S. Duberg and Holmes E. Hobart, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and ORR and POPE, Circuit Judges. ORR, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board, hereafter the Board, petitions for enforcement of an order
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
Allegheny Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. N.L.R.B
312 F.2d 529 (3d Cir. 1962) Cited 21 times
No. 13960. Argued November 2, 1962. Decided December 26, 1962. Robert Lewis, New York City, (Jackson Lewis, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner. Standau E. Weinbrecht, Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Melvin J. Welles, Nancy M. Sherman, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, on the brief), for respondent. Before KALODNER, STALEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. STALEY, Circuit Judge
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,110 times 35 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

Heck's, Inc.

20 Cited authorities

In United Mine Workers v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co., 351 U.S. 62, 76 S.Ct. 559, 100 L. Ed. 941, references to postlegislative history were referred to in the opinion of the Court.

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 N.L.R.B. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 341 F.2d 750 (6 Cir. 1965), the court granted enforcement of the Board's order finding the requests for copies of statements to be a violation of Section 8(a)(1).

In N.L.R.B. v. Heck's, Inc., 386 F.2d 317, 322 (4th Cir. 1967), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals explained the rationale behind not allowing "supervisors" to solicit signatures on union authorization cards.

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"