Jeffrey Mfg., Division

49 Cited authorities

  1. Edison Co. v. Labor Board

    305 U.S. 197 (1938)   Cited 19,306 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay
  2. 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"
  3. 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.”
  4. Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co.

    311 U.S. 584 (1941)   Cited 338 times
    Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"
  5. I.A. of M. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 72 (1940)   Cited 317 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."
  6. H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 514 (1941)   Cited 241 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.
  7. Marine Engineers v. Interlake Co.

    370 U.S. 173 (1962)   Cited 106 times
    In Interlake, this Court held that only the Board could determine whether the union met the statutory definition of a "labor organization."
  8. Labor Board v. Pittsburgh S.S. Co.

    337 U.S. 656 (1949)   Cited 88 times
    Holding "total rejection of an opposed view cannot of itself impugn the integrity or competence of a trier of fact"
  9. McEwen Manufacturing Co. v. National Labor Rel. Board

    397 U.S. 988 (1970)   Cited 29 times

    No. 1123. Decided March 23, 1970. C.A.D.C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Edward Carmack Cochran for petitioner. Solicitor General Griswold and Arnold Ordman for respondent National Labor Relations Board. Reported below: 136 U.S. App. D.C. 226, 419 F. 2d 1207.

  10. Salzhandler v. Caputo

    316 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1963)   Cited 118 times
    Holding that LMRDA protects allegedly libellous statements
  11. Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy

    29 U.S.C. § 151   Cited 5,092 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"
  12. Section 556 - Hearings; presiding employees; powers and duties; burden of proof; evidence; record as basis of decision

    5 U.S.C. § 556   Cited 911 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Specifying that presiding officers may either be the agency, a member of the body that comprises the agency, i.e., a commissioner, or an ALJ