Motorola, Inc.

25 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Brown
380 U.S. 278 (1965) Cited 473 times 2 Legal Analyses
Approving finding of § 8 violation when "employers' conduct is demonstrably so destructive of employee rights and so devoid of significant service to any legitimate business end that it cannot be tolerated consistently with the Act"
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
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.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. McGahey
233 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1956) Cited 133 times
In N.L.R.B. v. McGahey, 233 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1956), this court described casual and moderate inquiries, even as to union preference, absent evidence indicating that the employee has reason to consider the inquiries a threat of reprisals, as not constituting an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8(a)(1).
Bourne v. N.L.R.B
332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964) Cited 93 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.
N.L.R.B. v. Camco, Incorporated
340 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1965) Cited 76 times
Holding that knowledge of union activities could be inferred from the fact that an employer discharged eleven of sixteen union adherents without discharging any of its remaining seventy-four employees
N.L.R.B. v. Elias Brothers Big Boy, Inc.
325 F.2d 360 (6th Cir. 1963) Cited 29 times
No. 15180. December 11, 1963. William J. Avrutis, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, on the brief), for petitioner. George N. Bashara, Jr., Detroit, Mich., for respondents. Before WEICK and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and DARR, Senior District Judge. PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge. Elias Brothers Big Boy, Inc., referred to herein as "Elias," sells and distributes in the Detroit area several restaurant
N.L.R.B. v. United Aircraft
324 F.2d 128 (2d Cir. 1963) Cited 23 times
In NLRB v. United Aircraft Corp., 324 F.2d 128 (2d Cir. 1963), cert. denied 376 U.S. 951, 84 S.Ct. 969 (1964), the company rule prohibited distribution of union literature in nonworking areas of the company's premises.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Des Moines Foods, Inc.
296 F.2d 285 (8th Cir. 1961) Cited 20 times
No. 16694. November 29, 1961. Leo N. McGuire, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. made argument for petitioner. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Samuel M. Singer, Atty., and Leo N. McGuire, Atty., NLRB, Washington, D.C. were on the brief. Hobart E. Newton, Stuart, Iowa, made argument for respondent, and was on the brief. Before SANBORN, MATTHES and RIDGE, Circuit Judges. SANBORN
N.L.R.B. v. Harbison-Fischer Manufacturing Co.
304 F.2d 738 (5th Cir. 1962) Cited 19 times
No. 19105. June 20, 1962. Melvin Pollack, Atty., N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, for petitioner. Karl Mueller, Fort Worth, Tex., Harold E. Mueller, Mueller Mueller, Fort Worth, Tex., for respondent. Before HUTCHESON, WISDOM, and BELL, Circuit Judges. GRIFFIN B. BELL, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board here seeks enforcement of its order against Harbison-Fischer
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"

Motorola, Inc.

25 Cited authorities

Approving finding of § 8 violation when "employers' conduct is demonstrably so destructive of employee rights and so devoid of significant service to any legitimate business end that it cannot be tolerated consistently with the Act"

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

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.”

In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

Holding that knowledge of union activities could be inferred from the fact that an employer discharged eleven of sixteen union adherents without discharging any of its remaining seventy-four employees

In NLRB v. United Aircraft Corp., 324 F.2d 128 (2d Cir. 1963), cert. denied 376 U.S. 951, 84 S.Ct. 969 (1964), the company rule prohibited distribution of union literature in nonworking areas of the company's premises.

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"