§

Howmet Castings & Services, Inc.

05-CA-032642 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 29, 2006)
Howmet Castings & Services, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. 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.”

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 357 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  4. Abbey's Transp. Services, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    837 F.2d 575 (2d Cir. 1988)   Cited 25 times
    Finding violation when interrogator was a "lawyer-consultant"

  5. Mobil Exploration Prod. U.S. v. N.L.R.B

    200 F.3d 230 (5th Cir. 1999)   Cited 11 times
    Defining "concerted activity"

  6. GSX Corp. of Missouri v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    918 F.2d 1351 (8th Cir. 1990)   Cited 17 times
    Reviewing board's findings more critically where board's findings are contrary to ALJ's

  7. Jeannette Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    532 F.2d 916 (3d Cir. 1976)   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Sustaining the Board's finding that the employer's rule broadly prohibiting wage discussions was an unfair labor practice under § 8, reasoning that "wage discussions can be protected activity and that an employer's unqualified rule barring such discussions has the tendency to inhibit such activity"

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Price's Pic-Pac Supermarkets

    707 F.2d 236 (6th Cir. 1983)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that an objection "to each and every provision of the Remedy" did not pass muster under section 10(e)

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hicks Oils & Hicksgas, Inc.

    942 F.2d 1140 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 3 times

    No. 89-2795. Argued January 14, 1991. Decided September 4, 1991. Barbara A. Atkin, Judith P. Flower, N.L.R.B., Contempt Litigation Branch, Aileen A. Armstrong, William A. Baudler (argued), N.L.R.B., Appellate Court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, D.C., Joseph H. Solien, N.L.R.B., Region 14, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner. Gary A. Wincek (argued), William L. Becker, Laner, Muchin, Dombrow, Becker, Levin Tominberg, Chicago, Ill., Nancy M. Watkins, Wilburn, Suggs Watkins, St. Louis, Mo., for respondent

  10. National Steel Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    415 F.2d 1231 (6th Cir. 1969)   Cited 9 times

    No. 19131. September 3, 1969. Donald W. Ebbert, Pittsburgh, Pa., James B. Hecht, Michael Yukevich, Jr., Thorp, Reed Armstrong, Pittsburgh, Pa., on brief; Kirby L. Wilson, III, River Rouge, Mich., of counsel, for petitioner. Janet C. McCaa, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Peter Ames Eveleth, Attorneys, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief, for respondent. Before PECK, McCREE and

  11. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,589 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  12. Rule 701 - Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 701   Cited 5,919 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Governing testimony of lay witnesses