Montgomery Ward and Co., Inc.

12 Cited authorities

Radio Officers v. Labor Board
347 U.S. 17 (1954) Cited 470 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
Labor Board v. Insurance Agents
361 U.S. 477 (1960) Cited 324 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"
Labor Board v. Mackay Co.
304 U.S. 333 (1938) Cited 535 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices
Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
321 U.S. 678 (1944) Cited 269 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8
H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 514 (1941) Cited 241 times 1 Legal Analyses
In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.
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"
Labor Board v. Crompton Mills
337 U.S. 217 (1949) Cited 102 times
Holding unlawful unilateral changes significantly different from "any which the employer has proposed" during bargaining
Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board
185 F.2d 732 (D.C. Cir. 1950) Cited 162 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Joy Silk the Court held that when an employer could have no doubt as to the majority status or when an employer refuses recognition of a union "due to a desire to gain time and to take action to dissipate the union's majority, the refusal is no longer justifiable and constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain set forth in section 8(a)(5) of the Act".
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bradley Washfountain
192 F.2d 144 (7th Cir. 1951) Cited 55 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Bradley Washfountain Co., 7 Cir., 192 F.2d 144, 152, 153, we explicitly stated: "The cases involving the propriety of an employer's solicitation of individual employees, seem to fall into at least three classes.
General Tire of Miami Beach, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
332 F.2d 58 (5th Cir. 1964) Cited 12 times
No. 20037. May 13, 1964. D.P.S. Paul, Parker Davidson Thomson, Paul Sams, Miami, Fla., for petitioners. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Melvin H. Reifin, Atty., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel and Melvin Pollack, Atty., N.L.R.B., for respondent. Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BROWN and BELL, Circuit Judges. JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge. On the basis of a finding of violations of §§ 8(a)(1) and (3), the Board seeks enforcement of its cease and desist

Montgomery Ward and Co., Inc.

12 Cited authorities

Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

Holding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"

Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices

Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8

In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.

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

Holding unlawful unilateral changes significantly different from "any which the employer has proposed" during bargaining

In N.L.R.B. v. Bradley Washfountain Co., 7 Cir., 192 F.2d 144, 152, 153, we explicitly stated: "The cases involving the propriety of an employer's solicitation of individual employees, seem to fall into at least three classes.