Mayfield Produce Co.

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"
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.”
N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 357 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
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
N.L.R.B. v. Cumberland Shoe Corporation
351 F.2d 917 (6th Cir. 1965) Cited 49 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Cumberland we emphasized that "In no instance did any employee testify that he was told that the election was the only purpose of the card."
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. Peterson Brothers, Inc.
342 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1965) Cited 20 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Peterson Brothers, Inc., 5 Cir., 342 F.2d 221, the question arose in the following manner: The union requested recognition from the employer at a time that the union had in its possession cards signed by a majority of its employees.
N.L.R.B. v. C.J. Glasgow Company
356 F.2d 476 (7th Cir. 1966) Cited 8 times
Nos. 14960, 14999. February 15, 1966. Henry H. Sills, Detroit, Mich., Irving M. Friedman, Chicago, Ill. for C.J. Glasgow Co. Harold A. Katz, Bruce S. Feldacker, Chicago, Ill., for Petitioner, International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America AFL-CIO.; Stephen I. Schlossberg, Detroit, Mich., of counsel. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott C. Lichtman, Attorney N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli
Section 6621 - Determination of rate of interest
26 U.S.C. § 6621 Cited 1,873 times 23 Legal Analyses
Applying a higher interest rate to past liabilities resulting from tax-motivated transactions

Mayfield Produce Co.

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

Affirming Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176

In Cumberland we emphasized that "In no instance did any employee testify that he was told that the election was the only purpose of the card."

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"

In N.L.R.B. v. Peterson Brothers, Inc., 5 Cir., 342 F.2d 221, the question arose in the following manner: The union requested recognition from the employer at a time that the union had in its possession cards signed by a majority of its employees.

Applying a higher interest rate to past liabilities resulting from tax-motivated transactions