§

Kayser-Roth Hosiery Co., Inc.

176 N.L.R.B. 999 (N.L.R.B. 1969)
Kayser-Roth Hosiery Co., Inc.

11 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.

    356 U.S. 342 (1958)   Cited 296 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."

  2. Labor Board v. American Ins. Co.

    343 U.S. 395 (1952)   Cited 269 times
    Holding the degree of discretion in a CBA "is an issue for determination across the bargaining table, not by the Board"

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Reed Prince MFG

    205 F.2d 131 (1st Cir. 1953)   Cited 118 times
    In Reed Prince, supra, this court affirmed the Board's finding of refusal to bargain in good faith only "[a]fter an attentive review of the entire record of the bargaining negotiations."

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Herman Sausage Co

    275 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1960)   Cited 79 times
    In NLRB v. Herman Sausage Co., 275 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1960), our circuit held that "generally speaking, the freedom to grant a unilateral wage increase "is limited to cases where there has been a bona fide but unsuccessful attempt to reach an agreement with the union, or where the union bears the guilt for having broken off relations.' NLRB v. Andrew Jergens Co., 9 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 130, 136, cert. denied, 338 U.S. 827, 70 S.Ct. 76, 94 L.Ed. 503.

  5. Timken Roller Bearing Company v. N.L.R.B

    325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963)   Cited 56 times
    In Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 971, 84 S.Ct. 1135, 12 L.Ed.2d 85 (1964), the court considered a union request for information concerning five grievances that awaited hearings before a chosen arbitrator.

  6. Prudential Insurance Company of Am. v. N.L.R.B

    412 F.2d 77 (2d Cir. 1969)   Cited 34 times
    Recognizing that bargaining obligation "extends to . . . the administration of [CBAs] already adopted"

  7. Standard Oil Co. of Calif., W.O. v. N.L.R.B

    399 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1968)   Cited 15 times
    In Standard Oil, the court upheld the Board's conclusion that the furnishing of employee addresses was relevant and necessary to the union's performance of its responsibilities in collective bargaining and contract administration, and it required that the employer furnish the requested list of addresses.

  8. United Steelwork. of Am. Afl-Cio v. N.L.R.B

    363 F.2d 272 (D.C. Cir. 1966)   Cited 9 times

    Nos. 19492, 19507. Argued March 22, 1966. Decided May 19, 1966. Certiorari Denied October 10, 1966. See 87 S.Ct. 90. Mr. Michael H. Gottesman, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Elliot Bredhoff, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner in No. 19,492. Mr. Donald C. Winson, Pittsburgh, Pa., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Bartholomew A. Diggins, Daniel W. Sixbey, Washington, D.C., and Paul R. Obert, Pittsburgh, Pa.,

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Greensboro Hosiery Mills, Inc.

    398 F.2d 414 (4th Cir. 1968)   Cited 7 times

    No. 11909. Argued March 5, 1968. Decided July 8, 1968. Jeffrey G. Spragens, Atty., National Labor Relations Board (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Elliott Moore, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, on brief), for petitioner. J.W. Alexander, Jr., Charlotte, N.C. (Blakeney, Alexander Machen, Charlotte, N.C., on brief), for respondent. Before WINTER and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges, and MacKENZIE, District Judge. WINTER

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Kayser-Roth Hosiery Co.

    388 F.2d 979 (4th Cir. 1968)   Cited 7 times
    In Kayser-Roth, supra, we were unwilling to dispose of the contention that the "serious harm" language was violative of § 8(a)(1), without considering the circumstances surrounding its use, and even more recently in N.L.R.B. v. Greensboro Hosiery Mills, Inc., 398 F.2d 414 (4 Cir., 1968), in which Judge Butzner unqualifiedly concurred, we strongly intimated that a "serious harm" notice could violate the Act "by virtue of accompanying circumstance."