Lang Towing, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,036 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
Sprague v. Ticonic Bank
307 U.S. 161 (1939) Cited 1,053 times
Holding that because a petition for fees is "an independent proceeding supplemental to the original," the suggestion "that it came after the end of the term at which the main decree was entered and [is] therefore too late" was unavailing
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.”
Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
321 U.S. 678 (1944) Cited 270 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8
Roland Co. v. Walling
326 U.S. 657 (1946) Cited 173 times
In Roland Co. v. Walling, 326 U.S. 657, 66 S.Ct. 413, 90 L.Ed. 383 (1946), the Court held inter alia that a business engaged in commercial wiring, electrical contracting for industry, and repair and replacement of electric motors and generators did not constitute a "retail or service establishment."
Schauffler v. United Ass'n of Journeymen, Etc
246 F.2d 867 (3d Cir. 1957) Cited 35 times
Affirming that "[i]n any event, the costs were verified . . . to the satisfaction of the district court even though the precise procedure of Section 1924 was not followed"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Jamestown Sterling
211 F.2d 725 (2d Cir. 1954) Cited 29 times
No. 170, Docket 22862. Argued March 9, 1954. Decided April 5, 1954. George J. Bott, David P. Findling, A. Norman Somers, Owsley Vose and Jean Engstrom, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Rogerson Hewes, J. Russell Rogerson, Jamestown, N.Y., for respondent. Before CLARK, MEDINA and HARLAN, Circuit Judges. MEDINA, Circuit Judge. This case involves a more or less typical controversy between employer and employees. In the week of July 7, 1952, following the shutdown of the plant in the Village of Falconer
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Montgomery Ward
242 F.2d 497 (2d Cir. 1957) Cited 23 times
No. 211, Docket 24251. Argued January 11, 1957. Decided March 18, 1957. Theophil C. Kammholtz, Gen. Counsel, Stephen Leonard, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Samuel M. Singer and Florian J. Bartosic, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Charles J. Barnhill and David L. Dickson, Chicago, Ill., and T.W. Madden, New York, N.Y., for respondent. Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and LUMBARD and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges. LUMBARD, Circuit Judge. The National Labor
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Noll Motors, Inc.
433 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1970) Cited 6 times
In Noll Motors, for example, the court said: "Clearly, the president's statements, the interrogations and the manager's statements considered as a whole justified the Board's findings of coercion and restraint.
Retail Clerks Union, L. No. 1179 v. N.L.R.B
376 F.2d 186 (9th Cir. 1967) Cited 8 times
No. 20781. March 28, 1967. Roland C. Davis, Philip Paul Bowe, Carroll, Davis, Burdick McDonough, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Warren M. Davison, Lawrence M. Joseph, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Roy O. Hoffman, Director, N.L.R.B., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before HAMLEY and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE, District Judge. HAMLEY, Circuit Judge. This matter
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,104 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"

Lang Towing, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

Holding that because a petition for fees is "an independent proceeding supplemental to the original," the suggestion "that it came after the end of the term at which the main decree was entered and [is] therefore too late" was unavailing

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 offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8

Affirming that "[i]n any event, the costs were verified . . . to the satisfaction of the district court even though the precise procedure of Section 1924 was not followed"

In Noll Motors, for example, the court said: "Clearly, the president's statements, the interrogations and the manager's statements considered as a whole justified the Board's findings of coercion and restraint.

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"