ยง

Ornamental Iron Work Co.

295 N.L.R.B. 473 (N.L.R.B. 1989)
Ornamental Iron Work Co.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

    388 U.S. 26 (1967)   Cited 322 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. Labor Board v. Burnup Sims

    379 U.S. 21 (1964)   Cited 106 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Finding violation of ยง 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

  5. Laidlaw Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    414 F.2d 99 (7th Cir. 1969)   Cited 81 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that while an employer is not obligated to discharge permanent replacements to make room for returning economic strikers, the employer must place the former strikers on a preferential recall list

  6. Lima v. N.L.R.B

    819 F.2d 300 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 1 times

    No. 86-1182. Argued February 10, 1987. Decided May 19, 1987. David M. Silberman, with whom Harry Huge, Gary K. Harris, Allison Beck and Laurence Gold, were on brief, for petitioner. Angelo V. Arcadipane, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for petitioner. Marc B. Seidman, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom Robert E. Allen, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, John H. Ferguson and Barbara A. Atkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were on brief, for respondent

  7. Rubin Bros. Footwear v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    203 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1953)   Cited 17 times
    In Rubin Bros. Footwear v. National Labor Relations Bd., 203 F.2d 486 (C.C.A. 5th), the Court said: "If anything is settled in labor law and under the act, we think it is that membership in a union does not guarantee the member against a discharge as such. It affords protection against discharge only where it is established that the discharge is because of union activity."