Litton Precision Products, Inc.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Katz

    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"
  2. 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"
  3. 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
  4. Labor Board v. Steelworkers

    357 U.S. 357 (1958)   Cited 72 times
    In United Steelworkers, the Court warned that the NLRA "does not command that labor organizations as a matter of abstract law, under all circumstances, be protected in the use of every possible means of reaching the minds of individual workers, nor that they are entitled to use a medium of communication simply because the employer is using it."
  5. Timken Roller Bearing Company v. N.L.R.B

    325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963)   Cited 56 times
    In Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 971, 84 S.Ct. 1135, 12 L.Ed.2d 85 (1964), the court considered a union request for information concerning five grievances that awaited hearings before a chosen arbitrator.
  6. Edward Fields, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    325 F.2d 754 (2d Cir. 1963)   Cited 32 times
    In Edward Fields, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 325 F.2d 754 (2d Cir. 1963), a vice-president of the company suggested that the employees prepare a petition calling for the return of previously signed union authorization cards and, later, prepared such a petition at the request of one of his employees.
  7. N.L.R.B. v. Solo Cup Company

    237 F.2d 521 (8th Cir. 1956)   Cited 40 times

    No. 15524. October 18, 1956. Rehearing Denied November 16, 1956. Samuel M. Singer, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were with him on the brief), for petitioner. John J. Hasburgh, Kansas City, Mo. (Carl E. Enggas and Watson S. Marshall Enggas, Kansas City, Mo., were with him on the brief), for respondent. Before WOODROUGH

  8. NLRB v. Item Co.

    220 F.2d 956 (5th Cir. 1955)   Cited 36 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Item Company, 220 F.2d 956 (5th Cir. 1955), this court held that an employer had no confidentiality privilege to withhold from the union relevant wage data, "which the union's own employee-members apparently refused to disclose to it."
  9. National Labor Rel. Board v. J.H. Allison Co.

    165 F.2d 766 (6th Cir. 1948)   Cited 44 times

    No. 10411. January 26, 1948. On Petition for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Petition by National Labor Relations Board, for enforcement of its order directing J.H. Allison Co. to cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively concerning so-called "merit wage increases" with a labor union, as exclusive representative and bargaining agent of its production workers and to grant no merit wage increases to such employees without prior consultation with the union

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Des Moines Foods, Inc.

    296 F.2d 285 (8th Cir. 1961)   Cited 20 times

    No. 16694. November 29, 1961. Leo N. McGuire, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. made argument for petitioner. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Samuel M. Singer, Atty., and Leo N. McGuire, Atty., NLRB, Washington, D.C. were on the brief. Hobart E. Newton, Stuart, Iowa, made argument for respondent, and was on the brief. Before SANBORN, MATTHES and RIDGE, Circuit Judges. SANBORN