Impact Industries, Inc

20 Cited authorities

Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm'n
383 U.S. 607 (1966) Cited 3,614 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that even if two inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the evidence, the agency's interpretation may be supported by substantial evidence
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"
Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board
379 U.S. 203 (1964) Cited 731 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
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.”
Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board
321 U.S. 702 (1944) Cited 252 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.
N.L.R.B. v. P. Lorillard Co.
314 U.S. 512 (1942) Cited 76 times
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 71. Argued December 18, 19, 1941. Decided January 5, 1942. Whether an employer should be required to bargain with a union previously selected as employees' bargaining representative or, in view of lapse of time and changed conditions, a new election should be held is a question for decision by the Board and not by the Circuit Court of Appeals. P. 513. 117 F.2d 921, reversed. CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 557, to review a judgment entered
N.L.R.B. v. Western Temporary Services, Inc.
821 F.2d 1258 (7th Cir. 1987) Cited 48 times
Finding a joint employer relationship where the company could "refuse a referral" but also where the company had "exclusive control over the day-to-day activities of the part-time workers who [were] referred to it" including "train[ing], assign[ing] work, and supervis[ing] them."
N.L.R.B. v. L.B. Foster Company
418 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1969) Cited 47 times
In Foster, the Ninth Circuit answered: "Emphasis is given to the rapid turnover in the employer's personnel as a reason for not enforcing the order.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. Coty Messenger Service, Inc.
763 F.2d 92 (2d Cir. 1985) Cited 25 times
Denying enforcement of bargaining order where board failed to analyze effect of passage of time and employee turnover
Section 160 - Prevention of unfair labor practices
29 U.S.C. § 160 Cited 7,062 times 23 Legal Analyses
Finding that the procedures for unfair labor practice cases mandated by R.C. 4117.12 and 4117.13 are substantively identical to those established in NLRA to govern unfair labor practice cases before NLRB

Impact Industries, Inc

20 Cited authorities

Holding that even if two inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the evidence, the agency's interpretation may be supported by substantial evidence

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

Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

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.”

Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.

Finding a joint employer relationship where the company could "refuse a referral" but also where the company had "exclusive control over the day-to-day activities of the part-time workers who [were] referred to it" including "train[ing], assign[ing] work, and supervis[ing] them."

In Foster, the Ninth Circuit answered: "Emphasis is given to the rapid turnover in the employer's personnel as a reason for not enforcing the order.

Denying enforcement of bargaining order where board failed to analyze effect of passage of time and employee turnover

Finding that the procedures for unfair labor practice cases mandated by R.C. 4117.12 and 4117.13 are substantively identical to those established in NLRA to govern unfair labor practice cases before NLRB