§
Motz Poultry Co.

17 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,035 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  2. Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass

    404 U.S. 157 (1971)   Cited 630 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit

  3. Labor Board v. Virginia Power Co.

    314 U.S. 469 (1941)   Cited 169 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In 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.

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Eagle Material Handling, Inc.

    558 F.2d 160 (3d Cir. 1977)   Cited 36 times
    In Eagle Material, we held that a company violated the NLRA when it terminated an unpopular supervisor shortly before the union's representation election.

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Cumberland Shoe Corporation

    351 F.2d 917 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 49 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Cumberland we emphasized that "In no instance did any employee testify that he was told that the election was the only purpose of the card."

  6. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    289 F.2d 757 (D.C. Cir. 1960)   Cited 43 times

    No. 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

  7. International Un., United A., A. v. N.L.R.B

    363 F.2d 702 (D.C. Cir. 1966)   Cited 34 times
    Rejecting argument NLRB used section 8(c) protected statements as "as some evidence of the unfair labor practices themselves" and concluding statements were used only to "place . . . other acts in context"

  8. Intn'l United A., A. A. v. N.L.R.B

    392 F.2d 801 (D.C. Cir. 1967)   Cited 29 times
    Expressing skepticism of “employees testifying under the eye of the company officials about events which occurred almost a year before”

  9. Ann Lee Sportswear, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    543 F.2d 739 (10th Cir. 1976)   Cited 17 times
    In Ann Lee Sportswear, Inc. v. NLRB, supra, 543 F.2d at 742, this court said, "that it should only interfere with the Board's findings in the rare instance when the standard [regarding substantial evidence] appears to have been misapprehended or grossly misapplied."

  10. Wirtz v. B.A.C. Steel Products, Inc.

    312 F.2d 14 (4th Cir. 1962)   Cited 29 times
    In B.A.C., the Secretary supplied the exact information here requested by defendant, and if plaintiff will just do what Secretary Wirtz did voluntarily in B.A.C., defendant will have the information it wants.