§
I. Posner, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.

    356 U.S. 342 (1958)   Cited 296 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."

  2. Machinists Local v. Labor Board

    362 U.S. 411 (1960)   Cited 276 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely

  3. I.A. of M. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 72 (1940)   Cited 318 times
    In International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L. Ed. 50, there had been a long history of management favoritism to the established and hostility to the aspiring union; and in Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. 702, 703, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818, 88 L.Ed. 1020, the employer had "conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the union won the election."

  4. Republic Steel Corp. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 7 (1940)   Cited 232 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Republic Steel, supra, the Court refused to enforce an order requiring the employer to pay the full amount of back pay to an employee who had been paid to work for the Work Projects Administration in the meantime.

  5. Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board

    185 F.2d 732 (D.C. Cir. 1950)   Cited 162 times   2 Legal Analyses
    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".

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Whitin Mach. Works

    204 F.2d 883 (1st Cir. 1953)   Cited 57 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Whitin Machine Works, 204 F.2d 883 (1st Cir.1953), for example, an assistant supervisor in his employer's accounting department was, upon a consideration of the nature of his work, determined not to be a supervisor for purposes of litigating his discharge from employment, and, therefore, he was entitled to the protections of the National Labor Relations Act. 204 F.2d at 886.

  7. National Labor R.B. v. Wooster Div., Borg-W

    236 F.2d 898 (6th Cir. 1956)   Cited 24 times

    Nos. 12687, 12730. September 12, 1956. Owsley Vose, Washington, D.C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, David P. Findling, Marcel Mallet-Prevost and Irving M. Herman, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for N.L.R.B. James C. Davis, Cleveland, Ohio, for Wooster Division, of Borg-Warner Corp. Lowell Goerlich, Washington, D.C. (Harold Cranefield, Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for International Union, etc. Before MARTIN, MILLER and STEWART, Circuit Judges. MILLER, Circuit Judge. These cases are before the

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wheeling Pipe Line

    229 F.2d 391 (8th Cir. 1956)   Cited 15 times

    No. 15369. January 24, 1956. Arnold Ordman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Kalvin Kahn, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were with him on the brief), for petitioner. Lawrence B. Burrow, Jr., Little Rock, Ark. (J.A. O'Connor, Jr., El Dorado, Ark., Lawrence B. Burrow, Sr., and Moore, Burrow, Chowning Mitchell, Little Rock, Ark., were with him on the brief), for respondent

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Elec. City Dyeing

    178 F.2d 980 (3d Cir. 1950)   Cited 20 times
    In NLRB v. Electric City Dyeing Co., 178 F.2d 980 (3d Cir. 1950), this court had occasion to rule on a comparable situation where the employer alleged that certain employees were discharged for unsatisfactory work whereas the Board made a finding, in which we concurred, that the dismissals were for union activity.

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Corning Glass Works

    204 F.2d 422 (1st Cir. 1953)   Cited 6 times

    No. 4711. Heard April 8, 1953. Decided May 21, 1953. Thomas R. Haley, Seymour, Ind., Atty., N.L.R.B. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Frederick U. Reel, Atty., N.L. R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. W.D. Armour, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Nicholas Unkovic and Reed, Smith, Shaw McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for Corning Glass Works, respondent. Joseph A. Robie, Donald W. Fisher and Mulholland, Robie