New Fairview Hall Convalescent Home

77 Cited authorities

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"
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"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.
389 U.S. 375 (1967) Cited 233 times
In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.
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
Machinists Local v. Labor Board
362 U.S. 411 (1960) Cited 276 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely
SCM Corp. v. Advance Business Systems & Supply Co.
397 U.S. 920 (1970) Cited 200 times 5 Legal Analyses
Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances
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.”
Drivers Union v. Meadowmoor Co.
312 U.S. 287 (1941) Cited 382 times
Holding an injunction banning picketing was "justified only by the violence that induced it and only so long as it counteracts a continuing intimidation"
Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.
370 U.S. 9 (1962) Cited 206 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections
Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co.
311 U.S. 584 (1941) Cited 338 times
Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"

New Fairview Hall Convalescent Home

77 Cited authorities

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

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

In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.

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 “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely

Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances

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.”

Holding an injunction banning picketing was "justified only by the violence that induced it and only so long as it counteracts a continuing intimidation"

Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"