§

Krochier Mfg., Co.

243 N.L.R.B. 172 (N.L.R.B. 1979)
Krochier Mfg., Co.

8 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass

    404 U.S. 157 (1971)   Cited 630 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit

  3. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board

    313 U.S. 177 (1941)   Cited 871 times
    Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

  4. Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board

    185 F.2d 732 (D.C. Cir. 1950)   Cited 162 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Joy Silk the Court held that when an employer could have no doubt as to the majority status or when an employer refuses recognition of a union "due to a desire to gain time and to take action to dissipate the union's majority, the refusal is no longer justifiable and constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain set forth in section 8(a)(5) of the Act".

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sauk Valley Manufacturing Co., Inc.

    486 F.2d 1127 (9th Cir. 1973)   Cited 42 times
    In NLRB v. Sauk Valley Manufacturing Co., Inc., 486 F.2d 1127 (9th Cir. 1973), we recognized two reasons for discounting third party misconduct.

  6. Jas. H. Matthews Co. v. N.L.R.B

    354 F.2d 432 (8th Cir. 1966)   Cited 54 times
    In James H. Matthews Co., supra, the employee in question signed an authorization card. Later the union received a letter, postmarked 11 days after the effective date for determining majority status of the union, requesting return of the employee's authorization card. Allegedly, the letter was neither written, dated, nor addressed by the employee and was originally left with an undisclosed person.

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Monroe Auto Equipment Co.

    470 F.2d 1329 (5th Cir. 1973)   Cited 14 times
    Refusing to presume that the unlawful activity had an impact on or interference with the employees' freedom of choice where the record showed that the effect of the conduct was limited to specific employees, each of whom testified that he had voted his conscience and had ignored the unlawful conduct

  8. MPC Restaurant Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    481 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1973)   Cited 8 times

    Nos. 638, 869, Dockets 72-1892, 72-2029. Argued May 3, 1973. Decided July 5, 1973. Martin F. Payson, New York City (G. Harrison Darby, Philip S. Mortenson, Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler Krupman, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner. William R. Stewart, Washington, D.C. (John D. Burgoyne, Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent