10 Cited authorities
Beth Israel Hospital v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
437 U.S. 483 (1978) Cited 220 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that, in the context of solicitation rules, such circumstances are required to justify restrictions on solicitation during nonworking time
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Baptist Hospital, Inc.
442 U.S. 773 (1979) Cited 71 times 2 Legal AnalysesUpholding solicitation ban in corridors and sitting rooms
Labor Board v. Burnup Sims
379 U.S. 21 (1964) Cited 106 times 21 Legal AnalysesFinding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thor Power Tool Co.
351 F.2d 584 (7th Cir. 1965) Cited 68 timesConcluding that "when the entire record is considered there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that [employee's] discharge was the result of his having presented a grievance to the management" even though employee was overheard referring to company's superintendent as "the horse's ass" and was thereafter summarily discharged
N.L.R.B. v. Sunnyland Packing Co.
557 F.2d 1157 (5th Cir. 1977) Cited 28 timesIn NLRB v. Sunnyland Packing Co., 557 F.2d 1157, 1160-61 (5th Cir. 1977), the Fifth Circuit found that one contrary precedent does not justify reversal of an agency decision where the most recent line of authority is consistent. Accord Montana Power Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 608 F.2d 334, 338 and n. 27 (9th Cir. 1979).
N.L.R.B. v. Johnnie's Poultry Co.
344 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1965) Cited 32 times 11 Legal AnalysesIn N.L.R.B. v. Johnnie's Poultry Co., 8 Cir., 344 F.2d 617, we recognized that an employer has no vested right to insist that union representation be established by a Board conducted election but we further held that an employer acting in good faith belief that a union lacked majority representation was not required to recognize and bargain with the union until such doubt was resolved.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thayer Co.
213 F.2d 748 (1st Cir. 1954) Cited 40 timesIn 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.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Illinois Tool Works
153 F.2d 811 (7th Cir. 1946) Cited 47 timesNoting 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
International Un. of Oper. Eng., v. N.L.R.B
353 F.2d 852 (D.C. Cir. 1965) Cited 16 times 1 Legal AnalysesNo. 19238. Argued September 21, 1965. Decided November 4, 1965. Mr. Ronald A. Jacks, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. Michael R. Brown, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, of the bar of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Solomon I. Hirsh, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, were on the
Bank of St. Louis v. N.L.R.B
456 F.2d 1234 (8th Cir. 1972) Cited 5 timesNo. 71-1483. March 27, 1972. Gaylord C. Burke, Dennis C. Donnelly, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner; Bryan, Cave, McPheeters McRoberts, St. Louis, Mo., of counsel. Marjorie S. Gofreed, Atty., Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before GIBSON, HEANEY and ROSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This is a petition to review an order of the National