312 U.S. 426 (1941) Cited 506 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"
Holding issue not exhausted where the "tenor" of petitioner's objection to the Board was "purely factual," but the tenor of the objection on appeal was legal
Holding that "[t]he fact of discharge . . . does not depend on the use of formal words of firing. It is sufficient if the words or actions of the employer 'would logically lead a prudent person to believe his tenure had been terminated.'"
Noting that the test for violations of sec. 8, now codified as sec. 8, of the NLRA is whether "the employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act," and that actual or successful coercion need not be shown in order for the Board to find a violation