Mediplex of Danbury
5 Cited authorities
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,035 times 67 Legal AnalysesHolding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
SCM Corp. v. Advance Business Systems & Supply Co.
397 U.S. 920 (1970) Cited 200 times 5 Legal AnalysesUpholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances
Labor Board v. Virginia Power Co.
314 U.S. 469 (1941) Cited 169 times 2 Legal AnalysesIn NLRB v. Virginia Electric Power Co., 314 U.S. 469, 477, 62 S.Ct. 344, 348, 86 L.Ed. 348 (1941), the Supreme court concluded that the Wagner Act could not be interpreted to prohibit an employer from exercising his First Amendment right to express his views to employees on the merits of unionization, provided the expression was neither coercive nor part of a coercive course of conduct.
Laidlaw Corporation v. N.L.R.B
414 F.2d 99 (7th Cir. 1969) Cited 81 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that while an employer is not obligated to discharge permanent replacements to make room for returning economic strikers, the employer must place the former strikers on a preferential recall list
N.L.R.B. v. Sacramento Clinical Laboratory
623 F.2d 110 (9th Cir. 1980) Cited 9 times 1 Legal AnalysesNo. 79-7481. Argued and Submitted July 8, 1980. Decided July 11, 1980. Frederick Havard, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Kathleen M. Kelly, argued and J. Richard Thesing, on brief, Little, Mendelson, Fastiff Tichy, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. Application for Enforcement of an Order of The National Labor Relations Board. Before WRIGHT, KENNEDY and HUG, Circuit Judges. EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: We are asked to enforce three orders of the Board finding Sacramento Clinical Laboratory