R. E. Dietz Co.

6 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Brown
380 U.S. 278 (1965) Cited 473 times 2 Legal Analyses
Approving finding of § 8 violation when "employers' conduct is demonstrably so destructive of employee rights and so devoid of significant service to any legitimate business end that it cannot be tolerated consistently with the Act"
American Ship Bldg. v. Labor Board
380 U.S. 300 (1965) Cited 350 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful
H. K. Porter Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
397 U.S. 99 (1970) Cited 222 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the NLRB is "without power to compel a company or a union to agree to any substantive contractual provision of a collective-bargaining agreement."
Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.
356 U.S. 342 (1958) Cited 296 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."
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
N.L.R.B. v. Harvstone Mfg. Co.
785 F.2d 570 (7th Cir. 1986) Cited 28 times 1 Legal Analyses
In NLRB v. Harvstone Mfg. Corp., 785 F.2d 570 (7th Cir.1986), that Circuit declared that claims of competitive disadvantage are “nothing more than truisms” and do not equate to an inability to pay.

R. E. Dietz Co.

6 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Brown

Approving finding of § 8 violation when "employers' conduct is demonstrably so destructive of employee rights and so devoid of significant service to any legitimate business end that it cannot be tolerated consistently with the Act"

American Ship Bldg. v. Labor Board

Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful

H. K. Porter Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

Holding that the NLRB is "without power to compel a company or a union to agree to any substantive contractual provision of a collective-bargaining agreement."

Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.

Machinists Local v. Labor Board

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

N.L.R.B. v. Harvstone Mfg. Co.

In NLRB v. Harvstone Mfg. Corp., 785 F.2d 570 (7th Cir.1986), that Circuit declared that claims of competitive disadvantage are “nothing more than truisms” and do not equate to an inability to pay.