§

Kay Electroincs, Inc.

167 N.L.R.B. 1104 (N.L.R.B. 1967)
Kay Electroincs, Inc.

18 Cited authorities

  1. 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.”

  2. Wallace Corp. v. Labor Board

    323 U.S. 248 (1944)   Cited 162 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that corporation committed unfair labor practice

  3. Hendrix Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B

    321 F.2d 100 (5th Cir. 1963)   Cited 91 times
    Permitting the Board to consider the employer's clear expression of opposition to the union as background in order to determine motivation for management's conduct

  4. Ohio Power Co. v. N.L.R.B

    176 F.2d 385 (6th Cir. 1949)   Cited 64 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plain and unambiguous text must be applied as written without resort to construction

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Challenge-Cook Bros. of Ohio, Inc.

    374 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1967)   Cited 34 times
    Finding inference that supervisor who walked past a sign every day saw that sign was reasonable and provided substantial evidence for the NLRB's decision

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Melrose Processing Co.

    351 F.2d 693 (8th Cir. 1965)   Cited 33 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Melrose Processing Co., 8 Cir., 351 F.2d 693, also decided since this case was submitted, this court stated that if the factual conclusion of the Board is based upon substantial evidence on the whole record, this court must accept such factual determination as binding. Jas. H. Matthews Co. v. N.L.R.B., 8 Cir., 354 F.2d 432, decided December 29, 1965, adheres to these principles.

  7. Furr's, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    381 F.2d 562 (10th Cir. 1967)   Cited 30 times

    No. 8686. February 20, 1967. Rehearing Denied March 24, 1967. Certiorari Denied October 9, 1967. See 88 S.Ct. 70. James H. Milam, Lubbock, Tex., for petitioner. Anthony J. Obadal, Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli, Marcel Mallet-Prevost and Elliott Moore, Washington, D.C., on brief), for respondent. Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and ALDRICH and SETH, Circuit Judges. By special designation. MURRAH, Chief Judge. In this unfair labor practice proceedings the Board found the employer

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Elliott-Williams Co.

    345 F.2d 460 (7th Cir. 1965)   Cited 33 times
    Striking down as overbroad a portion of an order that enjoined an employer from "in any other manner" interfering with its employees' organizational and bargaining rights

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Solo Cup Company

    237 F.2d 521 (8th Cir. 1956)   Cited 40 times

    No. 15524. October 18, 1956. Rehearing Denied November 16, 1956. Samuel M. Singer, 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 Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were with him on the brief), for petitioner. John J. Hasburgh, Kansas City, Mo. (Carl E. Enggas and Watson S. Marshall Enggas, Kansas City, Mo., were with him on the brief), for respondent. Before WOODROUGH

  10. Filler Products, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    376 F.2d 369 (4th Cir. 1967)   Cited 22 times
    In Filler Products Inc. v. NLRB, 376 F.2d 369, 378 n. 3 (4th Cir. 1967), the court reiterated that "[o]ne of the established ways to determine in disputed cases when an employee is discharged is to ascertain when he was replaced."