369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
475 U.S. 192 (1986) Cited 76 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that labor law prohibits the assignment or transfer of a collective bargaining agreement against the wishes of the workers for whom the agreement provides representation
In NLRB v. Allied Prods. Corp., 548 F.2d 644 (6th Cir. 1977), the court upheld the NLRB's conclusion that the discontinuance of an annual review program violated the Act, while in NLRB v. Dothan Eagle, Inc., 434 F.2d 93 (5th Cir. 1970), the raises at issue were not "totally discretionary" but rather "automatic progression wage increases" of "10 to 15 cents per hour" that "were regularly granted every six months."
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."
In Pacific Grinding Wheel, the court recognized that "Board disapproval of proposed terms," "a company's adamant insistence on strong pro-management terms," and "rejection by the employer of terms which were in a previous contract" are not sufficient in themselves to establish bad faith, but are factors which may be considered by the Board with other evidence, and that the "totality of the circumstances may justify a finding of failure to bargain in good faith."
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.
In Dusky v. United States, 295 F.2d 743 (8 Cir. 1961), cert. denied 368 U.S. 998, 82 S.Ct. 625, 7 L.Ed.2d 536 (1962), this court held that the government may sustain its burden of proof on the issue of insanity even though it lacks medical evidence.
Holding that it was of "some relevance" that the employee was not "afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain the full circumstances of what occurred"