Matheson Fast Freight, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,036 times 71 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. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 712 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"
N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 358 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
Tripoli Co., Inc. v. Wella Corp.
400 U.S. 831 (1970) Cited 137 times
Declining to review under Hobbs Act district court's exercise of jurisdiction of claim against Federal Communications Commission because plaintiff-appellant had also filed timely petitions for review with court of appeals
I.A. of M. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 72 (1940) Cited 318 times
In International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L. Ed. 50, there had been a long history of management favoritism to the established and hostility to the aspiring union; and in Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. 702, 703, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818, 88 L.Ed. 1020, the employer had "conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the union won the election."
Surprenant Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B
341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965) Cited 60 times
In Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965) this Court approved as non-threatening, language of the employer which was much stronger than that used in the present case.
N.L.R.B. v. Security Guard Service, Inc.
384 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1967) Cited 53 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing "the standard reluctance to apply [a statutory] exception broadly"
Hotel Emp. Restaurant Emp. Un. v. N.L.R.B
760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 26 times 6 Legal Analyses
Affirming Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176
Dynamic Machine Co. v. N.L.R.B
552 F.2d 1195 (7th Cir. 1977) Cited 17 times
Noting that the Board found a worker a supervisor despite the fact that his assignment "options were limited and only a few factors needed to be taken into account in assigning work"
Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. N.L.R.B
424 F.2d 1151 (7th Cir. 1970) Cited 20 times
In Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. NLRB, 424 F.2d 1151 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 831, 91 S.Ct. 63, 27 L.Ed.2d 62 (1970), the Seventh Circuit permitted the Board to use a 50% formula to determine whether certain workers could vote in a union election.

Matheson Fast Freight, Inc.

11 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 "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"

Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

Declining to review under Hobbs Act district court's exercise of jurisdiction of claim against Federal Communications Commission because plaintiff-appellant had also filed timely petitions for review with court of appeals

In Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965) this Court approved as non-threatening, language of the employer which was much stronger than that used in the present case.

Recognizing "the standard reluctance to apply [a statutory] exception broadly"

Affirming Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176

Noting that the Board found a worker a supervisor despite the fact that his assignment "options were limited and only a few factors needed to be taken into account in assigning work"

In Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. NLRB, 424 F.2d 1151 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 831, 91 S.Ct. 63, 27 L.Ed.2d 62 (1970), the Seventh Circuit permitted the Board to use a 50% formula to determine whether certain workers could vote in a union election.