§

Lewis Business Forms, Inc.

180 N.L.R.B. 386 (N.L.R.B. 1969)
Lewis Business Forms, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

  1. J.I. Case Co. v. Labor Board

    321 U.S. 332 (1944)   Cited 457 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the result of a collective bargaining agreement is not "a contract of employment except in rare cases; no one has a job by reason of it and no obligation to any individual ordinarily comes into existence from it alone"

  2. 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."

  3. May Stores Co. v. Labor Board

    326 U.S. 376 (1945)   Cited 257 times
    Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"

  4. Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    321 U.S. 678 (1944)   Cited 269 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Tex-Tan, Inc.

    318 F.2d 472 (5th Cir. 1963)   Cited 45 times
    In NLRB v. Tex-tan, Inc., 318 F.2d 472, 478 (5th Cir. 1972), the Fifth Circuit found that the union's demand that records be provided in a "organized fashion" was unreasonable and that the company's "unqualified offer" to "see and copy any of its records" met the union's rights to be provided with information.

  6. Local 833, Uaw-Afl-Cio, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    300 F.2d 699 (D.C. Cir. 1962)   Cited 40 times

    Nos. 15961, 16031, 16182. Argued September 11, 1961. Decided January 26, 1962. Certiorari Denied June 4, 1962. See 82 S.Ct. 1258. Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D.C., and Mr. Louis H. Pollak, New Haven, Conn., of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. John Silard, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for Local 833, UAW-AFL-CIO, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, petitioner

  7. A.H. BELO CORPORATION

    411 F.2d 959 (5th Cir. 1969)   Cited 28 times
    Deciding that the employer engaged in dilatory tactics in “causing negotiations to drag out over a year ... delay[ing] negotiations two months in order to reply to the union's original proposal, and when it did, counter[ing] with a sketchy four page paper”

  8. N.L.R.B. v. United Brass Works, Inc.

    287 F.2d 689 (4th Cir. 1961)   Cited 35 times

    No. 8190. Argued November 7, 1960. Decided February 25, 1961. Paul J. Spielberg, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Melvin J. Welles, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. J.W. Alexander, Jr., Charlotte, N.C. (Blakeney, Alexander Machen, Charlotte, N.C., on the brief), for respondent. Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, BOREMAN, Circuit Judge, and BRYAN, District

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thayer Co.

    213 F.2d 748 (1st Cir. 1954)   Cited 40 times
    In Thayer, the court first announced that if the activity causing dismissal was protected under § 7 of the Act then denial of reinstatement was unlawful. If the activity was unprotected under § 7, however, the legality of the denial was to be determined according to a balancing test.

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Southern Coach Body Company

    336 F.2d 214 (5th Cir. 1964)   Cited 14 times

    No. 20744. September 14, 1964. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Paula Omansky, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Atty., N.L.R.B., for petitioner. M.A. Prowell, Frank A. Constangy, Constangy Prowell, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent. Before MAGRUDER, JONES and GEWIN, Circuit Judges. Senior Circuit Judge of the First Circuit, sitting by designation. GEWIN, Circuit Judge. This petition seeks enforcement of an