H.S.M. Machine Works, Inc. And Cove Aircraft Products, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 265 times 4 Legal Analyses
Approving "discovery-type standard"
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.”
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. Dothan Eagle, Inc.
434 F.2d 93 (5th Cir. 1970) Cited 30 times
No. 28576. November 2, 1970. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Charles M. Paschal, Jr., Director, N.L.R.B., Region 15, New Orleans, La., David E. Rosenbaum, Atty., N.L.R.B., Silver Spring, Md., for petitioner. C. Dale Stout, William F. Banta, Kullman, Lang, Keenan, Inman Bee, New Orleans, La., for respondent. Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges
N.L.R.B. v. Rubatex Corp.
601 F.2d 147 (4th Cir. 1979) Cited 10 times
Upholding an NLRB order to pay the same bonus to strikers that was given to non-strikers because the NLRB has “broad discretion in formulating remedies,” there were no practical alternatives, and there was no evidence that the order would have a substantial adverse effect on the company
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. N.L.R.B
655 F.2d 932 (9th Cir. 1981) Cited 7 times
No. 79-7541. Argued and Submitted October 9, 1980. Decided March 12, 1981. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc November 12, 1981. James Adler, Munger, Tolles Rickershauser, Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for appellant. Elliott Moore, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief; Gary Green, Director, Legal Dept., Washington, D.C., for appellee. Petition for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before SCHROEDER and CANBY, Circuit Judges and PFAELZER, District Judge. The Honorable Mariana
Smith Smith Aircraft Co. v. N.L.R.B
735 F.2d 1215 (10th Cir. 1984) Cited 3 times
Discussing the standard
N.L.R.B. v. Dan Howard Mfg. Co.
390 F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1968) Cited 16 times
In Dan Howard, supra, 390 F.2d at page 309, we further stated: "The court [Sixth Circuit] pointed out that it is relevant to consider the subjective intention of the signer and his expressed state of mind in deciding whether a misapprehension was knowingly induced."

H.S.M. Machine Works, Inc. And Cove Aircraft Products, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

Approving "discovery-type standard"

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.”

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

Upholding an NLRB order to pay the same bonus to strikers that was given to non-strikers because the NLRB has “broad discretion in formulating remedies,” there were no practical alternatives, and there was no evidence that the order would have a substantial adverse effect on the company

Discussing the standard

In Dan Howard, supra, 390 F.2d at page 309, we further stated: "The court [Sixth Circuit] pointed out that it is relevant to consider the subjective intention of the signer and his expressed state of mind in deciding whether a misapprehension was knowingly induced."