Omark-RCBS

5 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.
369 U.S. 404 (1962) Cited 298 times
Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"
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.”
Northern Ry. Co. v. Page
274 U.S. 65 (1927) Cited 40 times
In Northern R. Co. v. Page, 274 U.S. 65, 47 S.Ct., 491, 493, 71 L.Ed., 929, the Court held: "Under familiar rules, plaintiff was entitled to prevail if the evidence and the inferences that a jury might legitimately draw from it were fairly and reasonably sufficient to warrant a finding in his favor.
McGraw-Edison Company v. N.L.R.B
419 F.2d 67 (8th Cir. 1969) Cited 33 times
No. 19429. December 4, 1969. Paul S. Kuelthau, of Moller, Talent Kuelthau, St. Louis, for petitioner and filed brief and reply brief. John D. Burgoyne, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, N.L.R.B., and Robertamarie Kiley, Atty., N.L.R.B., were on the brief with Mr. Burgoyne. Charles A. Werner, St. Louis, Mo., for intervenor; Gibson Langsdale, Kansas
N.L.R.B. v. Superior Sales, Inc.
366 F.2d 229 (8th Cir. 1966) Cited 29 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Superior Sales, Inc., 366 F.2d 229 (8th Cir. 1966), this court laid down a number of guidelines to be considered in determining in a case like this whether the discharge of the employee in question was discriminatory and amounted to an unfair labor practice.

Omark-RCBS

5 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.

Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

Labor Board v. Parts Co.

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.”

Northern Ry. Co. v. Page

McGraw-Edison Company v. N.L.R.B

N.L.R.B. v. Superior Sales, Inc.

In N.L.R.B. v. Superior Sales, Inc., 366 F.2d 229 (8th Cir. 1966), this court laid down a number of guidelines to be considered in determining in a case like this whether the discharge of the employee in question was discriminatory and amounted to an unfair labor practice.