§

Janesville Products Division

240 N.L.R.B. 854 (N.L.R.B. 1979)
Janesville Products Division

4 Cited authorities

  1. Chicago Rawhide Mfg. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    221 F.2d 165 (7th Cir. 1955)   Cited 31 times
    In Chicago Rawhide, this Court concluded that: "[n]either mere cooperation, preference, nor possibility of control constitute unfair labor practices; and the Board may not infer conduct that is violative of the Act from conduct that is not, unless there is a substantial basis, in fact or reason, for that inference."

  2. Modern Plastics Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    379 F.2d 201 (6th Cir. 1967)   Cited 16 times
    In Modern Plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 379 F.2d 201, 203 (6th Cir. 1967), this Court noted that "[t]here is a line between cooperation and domination, and the purpose of the Act is to encourage cooperation and discourage domination."

  3. Coppus Engineering Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    240 F.2d 564 (1st Cir. 1957)   Cited 25 times
    In Coppus we adopted the requirement of actual evidence of domination of Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 221 F.2d 165 (7th Cir. 1955), and found none. Chief Judge Magruder, in a concurring opinion, recognized fully that the Shop Committee may have been "a feeble instrument", 240 F.2d at 573, but that it was "not the duty of the employer nor a function of the Board to `baby' along the employees in the direction of choosing an outside union."

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Magic Slacks, Inc.

    314 F.2d 844 (7th Cir. 1963)   Cited 5 times

    No. 13796. March 12, 1963. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Atty., Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Allen M. Hutter, N.L.R.B., for petitioner. Harry H. Ruskin, Chicago, Ill., Gilbert A. Siegel, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for respondent. Before SCHNACKENBERG, KNOCH and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges. KNOCH, Circuit Judge. This matter comes before us on the petition of the National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to Section 10(e) of the