Marsal Transport, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

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"
Sprague v. Ticonic Bank
307 U.S. 161 (1939) Cited 1,047 times
Holding that because a petition for fees is "an independent proceeding supplemental to the original," the suggestion "that it came after the end of the term at which the main decree was entered and [is] therefore too late" was unavailing
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.”
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
Schauffler v. United Ass'n of Journeymen, Etc
246 F.2d 867 (3d Cir. 1957) Cited 35 times
Affirming that "[i]n any event, the costs were verified . . . to the satisfaction of the district court even though the precise procedure of Section 1924 was not followed"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Noll Motors, Inc.
433 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1970) Cited 6 times
In Noll Motors, for example, the court said: "Clearly, the president's statements, the interrogations and the manager's statements considered as a whole justified the Board's findings of coercion and restraint.
Retail Clerks Union, L. No. 1179 v. N.L.R.B
376 F.2d 186 (9th Cir. 1967) Cited 8 times
No. 20781. March 28, 1967. Roland C. Davis, Philip Paul Bowe, Carroll, Davis, Burdick McDonough, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Warren M. Davison, Lawrence M. Joseph, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Roy O. Hoffman, Director, N.L.R.B., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before HAMLEY and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE, District Judge. HAMLEY, Circuit Judge. This matter
Local Union 676, Afl-Cio v. N.L.R.B
463 F.2d 953 (D.C. Cir. 1972) Cited 2 times
Nos. 71-1157, 71-1263 and 71-1406. Argued April 7, 1972. Decided May 9, 1972. Mr. Benjamin J. Francka, Springfield, Mo., with whom Mr. Jules Bernstein, Associate Counsel, Laborer's International Union of North America, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner in No. 71-1157 and intervenor in No. 71-1263. Mr. O. J. Taylor, Springfield, Mo., for petitioner in No. 71-1406 and respondent in No. 71-1263. Mr. Allen H. Feldman, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom Mr. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,091 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

Marsal Transport, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

Holding that because a petition for fees is "an independent proceeding supplemental to the original," the suggestion "that it came after the end of the term at which the main decree was entered and [is] therefore too late" was unavailing

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.”

Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8

Affirming that "[i]n any event, the costs were verified . . . to the satisfaction of the district court even though the precise procedure of Section 1924 was not followed"

In Noll Motors, for example, the court said: "Clearly, the president's statements, the interrogations and the manager's statements considered as a whole justified the Board's findings of coercion and restraint.

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"