Miami Springs Properties, Inc.

17 Cited authorities

Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board
313 U.S. 177 (1941) Cited 871 times
Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”
Brooks v. Labor Board
348 U.S. 96 (1954) Cited 300 times
Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board
Siegel Co. v. N. L. R. B
398 U.S. 959 (1970) Cited 134 times
No. 1525. June 15, 1970. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 417 F. 2d 1206.
Labor Board v. Mexia Textile Mills
339 U.S. 563 (1950) Cited 132 times
Reasoning that Board's entitlement to enforcement prevents cases from becoming moot because it "adds to existing sanctions that of punishment for contempt"
N.L.R.B. v. Griggs Equipment, Inc.
307 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1962) Cited 52 times
In Griggs, the issue was not even mentioned in the Board's Decision, but is noted in the decision of the court of appeals.
J.P. Stevens Co. v. N.L.R.B
380 F.2d 292 (2d Cir. 1967) Cited 44 times
In J.P. Stevens Co. v. NLRB, 380 F.2d at 304, we enforced an order requiring posting and mailing of notices to employees at forty-three of Stevens' plants in North and South Carolina when flagrant unfair labor practices were found at each of the twenty plants in that region at which union campaigns were started.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. S. Bleachery
257 F.2d 235 (4th Cir. 1958) Cited 33 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that the essential inquiry is whether the employer shares the power of management
Intern'l. Un. of Uni. Brewery, v. N.L.R.B
298 F.2d 297 (D.C. Cir. 1961) Cited 20 times
Nos. 15759, 15929, 15988. Argued September 19, 1961. Decided November 9, 1961. Certiorari Denied April 9, 1962. See 82 S.Ct. 875. Mr. James C. Paradise, Cincinnati, Ohio, with whom Mr. Mozart G. Ratner, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner in No. 15759. Mr. Lawrence J. Molony, New Orleans, La., of the bar of the Supreme Ct. of Louisiana, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Rocco C. Siciliano and Charles A. Hobbs, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for respondent
N.L.R.B. v. H.W. Elson Bottling Company
379 F.2d 223 (6th Cir. 1967) Cited 13 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Elson Bottling Company, 379 F.2d 223 (6th Cir. 1967), the Board found that the company engaged in a campaign of coercive speeches to its employees, threatening layoffs and curtailment of operations, as well as promising wage increases.
Henry I. Siegel Co. v. N.L.R.B
417 F.2d 1206 (6th Cir. 1969) Cited 10 times
In Henry I. Siegel, we held that we will examine the context of statements and the atmosphere in which they were made to determine whether they constitute "a permissible forceful argument in opposition to the union or a veiled threat to the employees in the event the union should win the election."
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,092 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"

Miami Springs Properties, Inc.

17 Cited authorities

Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board

Reasoning that Board's entitlement to enforcement prevents cases from becoming moot because it "adds to existing sanctions that of punishment for contempt"

In Griggs, the issue was not even mentioned in the Board's Decision, but is noted in the decision of the court of appeals.

Stating that the essential inquiry is whether the employer shares the power of management

In N.L.R.B. v. Elson Bottling Company, 379 F.2d 223 (6th Cir. 1967), the Board found that the company engaged in a campaign of coercive speeches to its employees, threatening layoffs and curtailment of operations, as well as promising wage increases.

In Henry I. Siegel, we held that we will examine the context of statements and the atmosphere in which they were made to determine whether they constitute "a permissible forceful argument in opposition to the union or a veiled threat to the employees in the event the union should win the election."

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"