Nordberg-Selah Fruit, Inc.

18 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. 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
Virginia Electric Co. v. Board
319 U.S. 533 (1943) Cited 326 times
Stating that the purpose of the Act is to encourage and protect "full freedom of association for workers"
Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.
309 U.S. 350 (1940) Cited 315 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA
Republic Steel Corp. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 7 (1940) Cited 231 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Republic Steel, supra, the Court refused to enforce an order requiring the employer to pay the full amount of back pay to an employee who had been paid to work for the Work Projects Administration in the meantime.
Labor Board v. Rockaway News Co.
345 U.S. 71 (1953) Cited 128 times
Holding that employees may bargain away their statutory right to strike
Douds v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n
241 F.2d 278 (2d Cir. 1957) Cited 64 times
In Douds v. International Longshoremen's Association, 241 F.2d 278 (2d Cir. 1957), we upheld the district court's granting of a preliminary injunction sought by the Board against a union.
National Labor Rel. Board v. Gaynor News Co.
197 F.2d 719 (2d Cir. 1952) Cited 45 times
In Gaynor it was conceded that the sole criterion for extra payments was union membership, and the vacation payments were admittedly gratuitous.
Cusano v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
190 F.2d 898 (3d Cir. 1951) Cited 35 times
No. 10404. Argued May 22, 1951. Filed August 16, 1951. Samuel J. Davidson, Hoboken, N.J. (DeFazio, Davidson DeFazio, Hoboken, N.J., on the brief), for petitioners. Arnold Ordman, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Mark C. Curran, Washington, D.C., Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, on the brief), for respondent. Before GOODRICH, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges. STALEY, Circuit Judge. This case is
Red Star Exp. Lines v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
196 F.2d 78 (2d Cir. 1952) Cited 34 times
In Red Star Express Lines v. National Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 196 F.2d 78, the court condemned the contract although the so-called general savings clause provided that any specific provision which was even "affected" by Taft-Hartley was to be without effect.

Nordberg-Selah Fruit, Inc.

18 Cited authorities

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

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

Stating that the purpose of the Act is to encourage and protect "full freedom of association for workers"

Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA

In Republic Steel, supra, the Court refused to enforce an order requiring the employer to pay the full amount of back pay to an employee who had been paid to work for the Work Projects Administration in the meantime.

Holding that employees may bargain away their statutory right to strike

In Douds v. International Longshoremen's Association, 241 F.2d 278 (2d Cir. 1957), we upheld the district court's granting of a preliminary injunction sought by the Board against a union.

In Gaynor it was conceded that the sole criterion for extra payments was union membership, and the vacation payments were admittedly gratuitous.

In Red Star Express Lines v. National Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 196 F.2d 78, the court condemned the contract although the so-called general savings clause provided that any specific provision which was even "affected" by Taft-Hartley was to be without effect.