Howard Johnson Co.

14 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"
Surprenant Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B
341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965) Cited 60 times
In Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965) this Court approved as non-threatening, language of the employer which was much stronger than that used in the present case.
J.P. Stevens Co. v. N.L.R.B
380 F.2d 292 (2d Cir. 1967) Cited 44 times
In J.P. Stevens Co. v. NLRB, 380 F.2d at 304, we enforced an order requiring posting and mailing of notices to employees at forty-three of Stevens' plants in North and South Carolina when flagrant unfair labor practices were found at each of the twenty plants in that region at which union campaigns were started.
N.L.R.B. v. Rich's of Plymouth, Inc.
578 F.2d 880 (1st Cir. 1978) Cited 25 times
Holding that employer did not violate NLRA by following established policy of refusing to rehire union employees who quit
Coletti's Furniture, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
550 F.2d 1292 (1st Cir. 1977) Cited 22 times
In Coletti's Furniture, Inc. v. NLRB, supra, 550 F.2d at 1293, we noted that after such repeated and unambiguous interpretation "there can be little reason for us to rescue the Board hereafter if it does not both articulate and apply our rule".
N.L.R.B. v. Fibers International Corp.
439 F.2d 1311 (1st Cir. 1971) Cited 27 times
Striking employee intimidated nonstriking employee
N.L.R.B. v. Billen Shoe Co.
397 F.2d 801 (1st Cir. 1968) Cited 30 times
No. 7062. Heard May 6, 1968. Decided July 2, 1968. Laurence J. Hoffman, Washington, D.C., Atty., with whom Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Gary Green, Washington, D.C., Atty., were on brief, for petitioner. Irving Isaacson, Lewiston, Me., for respondent. Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges. ALDRICH, Chief Judge. This is a petition for enforcement of a Labor Board order. Respondent took
Serv-Air, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
395 F.2d 557 (10th Cir. 1968) Cited 28 times
Applying special circumstances approach to rule banning the wearing of multiple badges
P.S.C. Resources, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
576 F.2d 380 (1st Cir. 1978) Cited 15 times
No. 77-1389. Argued March 9, 1978. Decided May 12, 1978. Sanford A. Kowal, Boston, Mass., with whom Sallop, Kowal Davis, Assoc., Boston, Mass., was on brief, for petitioner. Wyneva Johnson, Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom Michael S. Winer, Atty., John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Carl L. Taylor, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor
N.L.R.B. v. Lowell Sun Publishing Company
320 F.2d 835 (1st Cir. 1963) Cited 29 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Lowell Sun Publishing Co., 320 F.2d 835, 841 (1 Cir. 1963), the Board found that the company discharged an employee because of his union activity.

Howard Johnson Co.

14 Cited authorities

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

In Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965) this Court approved as non-threatening, language of the employer which was much stronger than that used in the present case.

Holding that employer did not violate NLRA by following established policy of refusing to rehire union employees who quit

In Coletti's Furniture, Inc. v. NLRB, supra, 550 F.2d at 1293, we noted that after such repeated and unambiguous interpretation "there can be little reason for us to rescue the Board hereafter if it does not both articulate and apply our rule".

Striking employee intimidated nonstriking employee

Applying special circumstances approach to rule banning the wearing of multiple badges

In N.L.R.B. v. Lowell Sun Publishing Co., 320 F.2d 835, 841 (1 Cir. 1963), the Board found that the company discharged an employee because of his union activity.