§

Marion Center Supply, Inc.

277 N.L.R.B. 262 (N.L.R.B. 1985)
Marion Center Supply, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,035 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  2. N.L.R.B. v. Jamaica Towing, Inc.

    632 F.2d 208 (2d Cir. 1980)   Cited 50 times
    Holding that "hallmark" violations of NLRA "include such employer misbehavior as the closing of a plant or threats of plant closure or loss of employment, the grant of benefits to employees, or the reassignment, demotion or discharge of union adherents" and lesser violations "include such employer misconduct as interrogating employees regarding their union sympathies, holding out a `carrot' of promised benefits, expressing anti-union resolve, threatening that unionization will result in decreased benefits, or suggesting that physical force might be used to exclude the union"

  3. Sturgis Newport Bus. Forms, v. N.L.R.B

    563 F.2d 1252 (5th Cir. 1977)   Cited 31 times
    Finding that an employee's evasive answers to questions raises the inference that they feared reprisal

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Hubbard Co.

    702 F.2d 634 (6th Cir. 1983)   Cited 3 times

    No. 81-1674. Argued January 19, 1983. Decided March 22, 1983. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Ralph Simpson (argued), N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Donald M. Mewhort, Jr., Timothy C. McCarthy (argued), Toledo, Ohio, for respondent. Petition from the National Labor Relations Board. Before KENNEDY, JONES and CONTIE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of an order directing the Hubbard Company (Company) to bargain with

  5. National Can Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    374 F.2d 796 (7th Cir. 1967)   Cited 15 times
    In National Can Corp. v. NLRB, 374 F.2d 796 (7th Cir. 1967), this court explained, "once having defined the unit it claims to represent and having made a bargaining demand on that basis, the Union has thereby established the frame of reference for measuring the validity of its demand."

  6. N.L.R.B. v. M. Koppel Company

    412 F.2d 681 (3d Cir. 1969)   Cited 3 times

    No. 17354. Argued April 11, 1969. Decided June 12, 1969. Sanford Fisher, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, John D. Burgoyne, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Laurence S. Fordham, Foley, Hoag Eliot, Boston, Mass. (David B. Ellis, Boston, Mass., on the brief), for respondent. Before HASTIE, Chief Judge, and KALODNER and

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Richman Brothers Company

    387 F.2d 809 (7th Cir. 1967)   Cited 3 times

    No. 16159. December 13, 1967. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Richard Adelman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Paul J. Spielberg, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Frank C. Heath, Cleveland, Ohio, for respondent, Jones, Day, Cockley Reavis, Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel. Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and CASTLE and CUMMINGS, Circuit Judges. HASTINGS, Chief Judge. National Labor Relations Board petitions pursuant to