3 Cited authorities
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding 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.”
International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
289 F.2d 757 (D.C. Cir. 1960) Cited 43 timesNo. 15384. Argued April 11, 1960. Decided June 30, 1960. Mr. Benjamin C. Sigal, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. David S. Davidson, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner. Miss Fannie M. Boyls, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, with whom Messrs. Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, were on the brief, for respondent. Before PRETTYMAN, Chief Judge, and BAZELON and
Union Carbide Corporation v. N.L.R.B
310 F.2d 844 (6th Cir. 1962) Cited 15 timesNo. 14921. December 26, 1962. William C. Treanor and Henry Clifton, Jr., Buell, Clifton Truner, New York City, for petitioner. Elliott Moore, Atty., N.L.R.B. Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, James C. Paras, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent. Before McALLISTER, WEICK and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Carbide has petitioned this Court to review an order of the