Martin-Brower Company, The

21 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,036 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"
Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.
312 U.S. 426 (1941) Cited 506 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"
Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board
321 U.S. 702 (1944) Cited 252 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.
Labor Board v. Pittsburgh S.S. Co.
337 U.S. 656 (1949) Cited 88 times
Holding "total rejection of an opposed view cannot of itself impugn the integrity or competence of a trier of fact"
N.L.R.B. v. L.B. Foster Company
418 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1969) Cited 47 times
In Foster, the Ninth Circuit answered: "Emphasis is given to the rapid turnover in the employer's personnel as a reason for not enforcing the order.
Hedstrom Co. v. N.L.R.B
558 F.2d 1137 (3d Cir. 1977) Cited 32 times
Holding statements made by low-level supervisor to be coercive
United Dairy Farmers Co-op. Ass'n v. N.L.R.B
633 F.2d 1054 (3d Cir. 1980) Cited 20 times
Nos. 79-1807, 79-1883. Argued May 23, 1980. Decided October 30, 1980. John Regis Valaw, James J. Flaherty (argued), Pittsburgh, Pa., Stephen J. Cabot, Pechner, Dorfman, Wolffe, Rounick Cabot, Philadelphia, Pa., for United Dairy Farmers Cooperative Association. Hugh J. Beins, Jonathan G. Axelrod (argued), Bethesda, Md., Louis B. Kushner, Rothman, Gordon, Foreman, Groudine, P. A., Pittsburgh, Pa., for Teamsters Local Union No. 205. Richard B. Bader (argued), Atty., William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel
Chromalloy Min. and Minerals, v. N.L.R.B
620 F.2d 1120 (5th Cir. 1980) Cited 19 times
Enforcing Gissel Order where employer refused to recall a union-supporting employee for his usual seasonal employment, threatened to close the plant, and promised a benefit to one employee if he opposed the union
International Un., United A., A. v. N.L.R.B
363 F.2d 702 (D.C. Cir. 1966) Cited 34 times
Rejecting argument NLRB used section 8(c) protected statements as "as some evidence of the unfair labor practices themselves" and concluding statements were used only to "place . . . other acts in context"
N.L.R.B. v. Arrow Molded Plastics, Inc.
653 F.2d 280 (6th Cir. 1981) Cited 11 times
No. 79-1550. July 13, 1981. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Joseph Schwachter, Bernard Levine, Director, Region 8, N.L.R.B., Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner. Roger Benko, Thornburg, McGill, Deahl, Harman, Carey Murray, Elkhart, Ind., Lawrence C. DiNardo, for respondent. Before WEICK, KEITH and JONES, Circuit Judges. NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board (the Board) seeks enforcement of its order directing Arrow Molded Plastics

Martin-Brower Company, The

21 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 "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"

Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.

Holding "total rejection of an opposed view cannot of itself impugn the integrity or competence of a trier of fact"

In Foster, the Ninth Circuit answered: "Emphasis is given to the rapid turnover in the employer's personnel as a reason for not enforcing the order.

Holding statements made by low-level supervisor to be coercive

Enforcing Gissel Order where employer refused to recall a union-supporting employee for his usual seasonal employment, threatened to close the plant, and promised a benefit to one employee if he opposed the union

Rejecting argument NLRB used section 8(c) protected statements as "as some evidence of the unfair labor practices themselves" and concluding statements were used only to "place . . . other acts in context"