Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute

11 Cited authorities

  1. 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"
  2. 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.”
  3. Hendrix Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B

    321 F.2d 100 (5th Cir. 1963)   Cited 91 times
    Permitting the Board to consider the employer's clear expression of opposition to the union as background in order to determine motivation for management's conduct
  4. N.L.R.B. v. Dorn's Transportation Company

    405 F.2d 706 (2d Cir. 1969)   Cited 40 times
    Noting that "a good faith effort to conform to the requirements of the law" would be a legal motivation for withholding benefits
  5. International Un., United A., A. v. N.L.R.B

    363 F.2d 702 (D.C. Cir. 1966)   Cited 34 times
    Rejecting argument NLRB used section 8(c) protected statements as "as some evidence of the unfair labor practices themselves" and concluding statements were used only to "place . . . other acts in context"
  6. J.C. Penney Co. v. N.L.R.B

    384 F.2d 479 (10th Cir. 1967)   Cited 30 times

    No. 8874. August 29, 1967. William C. McClearn, Denver, Colo. (Robert L. Morris, Morris B. Hecox, Denver, Colo., Eugene F. Rowan and Martin Zeiger, New York City, with him on brief), for petitioner. Peter M. Giesey, Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli, Marcel Mallet-Prevost and Nancy M. Sherman, Washington, D.C., with him on brief), for respondent. Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges. MURRAH, Chief Judge. This matter arises from two separate unfair

  7. United Steelworkers of America v. N.L.R.B

    376 F.2d 770 (D.C. Cir. 1967)   Cited 27 times

    Nos. 18921, 20211. Argued November 22, 1966. Decided March 24, 1967. Petitions for Rehearing Denied April 21, 1967. Mr. Michael Gottesman, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Elliott Bredhoff, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner in No. 18,921 and intervenor in No. 20,211. Mrs. Janet Kohn, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Warren M. Davison, Atty., N.L.R.B., were on the

  8. N.L.R.B. v. General Stencils, Inc.

    472 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1972)   Cited 18 times
    Denying enforcement after Gissel remand
  9. N.L.R.B. v. Delight Bakery, Inc.

    353 F.2d 344 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 25 times

    No. 16091. December 3, 1965. Elliott Moore, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Allen M. Hutter, Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief, for petitioner. Jack R. Clary, Grand Rapids, Mich., Warner, Norcross Judd, by Thomas McNamara, Grand Rapids, Mich., on brief, for respondent. Before EDWARDS and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge. EDWARDS, Circuit

  10. Wausau Steel Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    377 F.2d 369 (7th Cir. 1967)   Cited 21 times

    No. 15840. April 11, 1967. Richard P. Tinkham, of Smith, Puchner, Tinkham Smith, Wausau, Wis., for petitioner. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Glen M. Bendixsen, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Melvin H. Reifin, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, for respondent. Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and SCHNACKENBERG and KILEY, Circuit Judges. HASTINGS, Chief Judge. The Wausau Steel Corporation