Homer D. Bronson Co.

21 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,035 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
Bridgeport v. Assn. Against Discrim
455 U.S. 988 (1982) Cited 138 times
Granting summary judgment in defendant's favor in antitrust case, finding "no significant probative evidence of a conspiracy"
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
Scott v. Stephen Dunn Assoc
241 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 41 times
Observing that "injunctive relief under section 10(j) is intended to preserve the status quo pending final action by the Board"
Tellepsen Pipeline Services Co. v. N.L.R.B
320 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2003) Cited 26 times
Explaining the standard for unlawful discharge
N.L.R.B. v. Jamaica Towing, Inc.
632 F.2d 208 (2d Cir. 1980) Cited 50 times
Holding that "hallmark" violations of NLRA "include such employer misbehavior as the closing of a plant or threats of plant closure or loss of employment, the grant of benefits to employees, or the reassignment, demotion or discharge of union adherents" and lesser violations "include such employer misconduct as interrogating employees regarding their union sympathies, holding out a `carrot' of promised benefits, expressing anti-union resolve, threatening that unionization will result in decreased benefits, or suggesting that physical force might be used to exclude the union"
Federated Logistics Operations v. N.L.R.B
400 F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2005) Cited 16 times
Nos. 03-1323, 03-1357. Argued September 14, 2004. Decided February 25, 2005. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Meir Feder argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Andrew M. Kramer and Julia M. Broas. Robert J. Englehart, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Rosenfeld, General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel
N.L.R.B. v. A.P.R.A. Fuel Oil Buyers Grp.
28 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 1994) Cited 22 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that once an employer fails to make required contributions to an ERISA plan, it exercises control respecting the disposition of assets of an ERISA plan and thereby becomes a plan fiduciary
N.L.R.B. v. St. Francis Healthcare Centre
212 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2000) Cited 15 times
Observing that an employer’s "own campaign literature distributed after August 6 obviated any threat to reduce or eliminate benefits before bargaining began"

Homer D. Bronson Co.

21 Cited authorities

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

Granting summary judgment in defendant's favor in antitrust case, finding "no significant probative evidence of a conspiracy"

Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

Observing that "injunctive relief under section 10(j) is intended to preserve the status quo pending final action by the Board"

Explaining the standard for unlawful discharge

Holding that once an employer fails to make required contributions to an ERISA plan, it exercises control respecting the disposition of assets of an ERISA plan and thereby becomes a plan fiduciary

Observing that an employer’s "own campaign literature distributed after August 6 obviated any threat to reduce or eliminate benefits before bargaining began"