Joslyn Mfg. and Supply Co.

16 Cited authorities

Edison Co. v. Labor Board
305 U.S. 197 (1938) Cited 19,484 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay
Radio Officers v. Labor Board
347 U.S. 17 (1954) Cited 471 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
Labor Board v. Mackay Co.
304 U.S. 333 (1938) Cited 535 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices
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.”
Textile Workers v. Darlington Co.
380 U.S. 263 (1965) Cited 168 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer has the absolute right, at least as far as the NLRA is concerned, to terminate his entire business for any reason
Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.
309 U.S. 350 (1940) Cited 318 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.
360 U.S. 301 (1959) Cited 106 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred
National Labor Relations Bd. v. Federbush Co.
121 F.2d 954 (2d Cir. 1941) Cited 85 times 2 Legal Analyses
In National Labor Relations Board v. Federbush Co., 121 Fed. 2d 954, decided July 18, 1941, the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was written by Judge Learned Hand.
N.L.R.B. v. Wichita Television Corporation
277 F.2d 579 (10th Cir. 1960) Cited 23 times
No. 6153. April 5, 1960. Rehearing Denied June 1, 1960. Duane B. Beeson, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., and Standau E. Weinbrecht, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. George J. Bott, Washington, D.C., and Daniel M. Moyer, Wichita, Kan., for respondent. Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and PICKETT, Circuit Judges. PICKETT, Circuit Judge. The
Bakery Wagon Drivers, No. 484 v. N.L.R.B
321 F.2d 353 (D.C. Cir. 1963) Cited 18 times
No. 17200. Argued March 20, 1963. Decided May 23, 1963. Mr. Duane B. Beeson, San Francisco, Cal., of the bar of the Supreme Court of California, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Mozart G. Ratner, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Hans J. Lehmann, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., were on the brief, for respondent. Before DANAHER
Section 151 - Deposits in bank by disbursing agents
25 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5 times
Any United States Indian agent, superintendent, or other disbursing agent of the Indian Service may deposit Indian moneys, individual or tribal, coming into his hands as custodian, in such national bank or banks as he may select: Provided, That the bank or banks so selected by him shall first execute to said disbursing agent a bond, with approved surety, in such an amount as will properly safeguard the funds to be deposited. Such bond shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior

Joslyn Mfg. and Supply Co.

16 Cited authorities

Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices

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 an employer has the absolute right, at least as far as the NLRA is concerned, to terminate his entire business for any reason

Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA

Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred

In National Labor Relations Board v. Federbush Co., 121 Fed. 2d 954, decided July 18, 1941, the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was written by Judge Learned Hand.