Liberty Telephone & Communication, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

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.”
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"
Labor Board v. Crompton Mills
337 U.S. 217 (1949) Cited 102 times
Holding unlawful unilateral changes significantly different from "any which the employer has proposed" during bargaining
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.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bradley Washfountain
192 F.2d 144 (7th Cir. 1951) Cited 55 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Bradley Washfountain Co., 7 Cir., 192 F.2d 144, 152, 153, we explicitly stated: "The cases involving the propriety of an employer's solicitation of individual employees, seem to fall into at least three classes.
Armstrong Cork Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
211 F.2d 843 (5th Cir. 1954) Cited 27 times
In Armstrong Cork Co. v. NLRB, 211 F.2d 843 (5th Cir. 1954), an employer announced to an assembly of workers shortly after a representation election that he intended to remove a "pledge" which the Company had posted on the bulletin board setting forth employees' rights.
N.L.R.B. v. Almeida Bus Lines, Inc.
333 F.2d 729 (1st Cir. 1964) Cited 15 times
No. 6261. June 25, 1964. Vivian Asplund, Attorney, Washington, D.C., with whom Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Assistant General Counsel, and Warren M. Davison, Attorney, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for petitioner. Joseph C. Wells, Washington, D.C., with whom Winthrop A. Johns and Reilly Wells, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for respondent. Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges. HARTIGAN
National Labor Rel. Board v. Landis Tool Co.
193 F.2d 279 (3d Cir. 1952) Cited 16 times
In Landis Tool Co. the company allowed an increase of 7 cents an hour to 15 pattern makers with whose union it was currently bargaining at the same time that the wage increase was allowed to some 900 other employees in the plant.

Liberty Telephone & Communication, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

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.”

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"

Holding unlawful unilateral changes significantly different from "any which the employer has proposed" during bargaining

In N.L.R.B. v. Bradley Washfountain Co., 7 Cir., 192 F.2d 144, 152, 153, we explicitly stated: "The cases involving the propriety of an employer's solicitation of individual employees, seem to fall into at least three classes.

In Armstrong Cork Co. v. NLRB, 211 F.2d 843 (5th Cir. 1954), an employer announced to an assembly of workers shortly after a representation election that he intended to remove a "pledge" which the Company had posted on the bulletin board setting forth employees' rights.

In Landis Tool Co. the company allowed an increase of 7 cents an hour to 15 pattern makers with whose union it was currently bargaining at the same time that the wage increase was allowed to some 900 other employees in the plant.