§
Nachman Corp.

24 Cited authorities

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,673 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

  2. Labor Board v. Seven-Up Co.

    344 U.S. 344 (1953)   Cited 368 times
    Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding

  3. Interstate Circuit v. U.S.

    306 U.S. 208 (1939)   Cited 512 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding proof of an explicit agreement unnecessary to establish antitrust conspiracy among movie distributors where, "knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it"

  4. I.A. of M. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 72 (1940)   Cited 317 times
    In International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L. Ed. 50, there had been a long history of management favoritism to the established and hostility to the aspiring union; and in Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. 702, 703, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818, 88 L.Ed. 1020, the employer had "conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the union won the election."

  5. Labor Board v. Bradford Dyeing Assn

    310 U.S. 318 (1940)   Cited 150 times
    Construing "affecting commerce"

  6. Labor Board v. Steelworkers

    357 U.S. 357 (1958)   Cited 72 times
    In United Steelworkers, the Court warned that the NLRA "does not command that labor organizations as a matter of abstract law, under all circumstances, be protected in the use of every possible means of reaching the minds of individual workers, nor that they are entitled to use a medium of communication simply because the employer is using it."

  7. 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).

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Universal Camera

    190 F.2d 429 (2d Cir. 1951)   Cited 52 times

    No. 21395. Argued June 14, 1951. Decided July 13, 1951. Before SWAN, Chief Judge, and FRANK and L. HAND, Circuit Judges. Mozart G. Ratner, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner. Frederick R. Livingston, New York City, for the respondent. L. HAND, Circuit Judge. By a divided vote we decided this appeal last year upon the same record that is now before us, holding that the Board's order should be "enforced." The Supreme Court vacated our order and remanded the cause to us for reconsideration in two

  9. National Labor Relations Bd. v. James Thompson

    208 F.2d 743 (2d Cir. 1953)   Cited 41 times
    Reinstating ALJ's findings after Board reversal

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Illinois Tool Works

    153 F.2d 811 (7th Cir. 1946)   Cited 47 times
    Noting that the test for violations of sec. 8, now codified as sec. 8, of the NLRA is whether "the employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act," and that actual or successful coercion need not be shown in order for the Board to find a violation