Labor Board v. Virginia Power Co.

In NLRB v. Virginia Electric Power Co., 314 U.S. 469, 477, 62 S.Ct. 344, 348, 86 L.Ed. 348 (1941), the Supreme court concluded that the Wagner Act could not be interpreted to prohibit an employer from exercising his First Amendment right to express his views to employees on the merits of unionization, provided the expression was neither coercive nor part of a coercive course of conduct.

Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board

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".

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

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.

N.L.R.B. v. Flomatic Corporation

In NLRB v. Flomatic Corp., 347 F.2d 74, 76-77 (2 Cir. 1965), this court held that various promises of benefits and an invitation to deal directly with the company violated § 8(a)(1).

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

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."

Irving Air Chute Company v. N.L.R.B

In Irving Air Chute Co. v. N.L.R.B., 2 Cir., 350 F.2d 176, 182, the Court in allowing enforcement of the Board's order cited many cases for the proposition, "`It is for the Board not the courts to determine how the effect of prior unfair labor practices may be expunged'."

International Un., United A., A. v. N.L.R.B

Rejecting argument NLRB used section 8(c) protected statements as "as some evidence of the unfair labor practices themselves" and concluding statements were used only to "place . . . other acts in context"

N.L.R.B. v. Johnnie's Poultry Co.

In N.L.R.B. v. Johnnie's Poultry Co., 8 Cir., 344 F.2d 617, we recognized that an employer has no vested right to insist that union representation be established by a Board conducted election but we further held that an employer acting in good faith belief that a union lacked majority representation was not required to recognize and bargain with the union until such doubt was resolved.

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

N.L.R.B. v. Peterson Brothers, Inc.

In N.L.R.B. v. Peterson Brothers, Inc., 5 Cir., 342 F.2d 221, the question arose in the following manner: The union requested recognition from the employer at a time that the union had in its possession cards signed by a majority of its employees.

Section 160 - Prevention of unfair labor practices

Finding that the procedures for unfair labor practice cases mandated by R.C. 4117.12 and 4117.13 are substantively identical to those established in NLRA to govern unfair labor practice cases before NLRB