Roselon Southern, Inc.
2 Cited authorities
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding 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.”
N.L.R.B. v. Beaver Meadow Creamery
215 F.2d 247 (3d Cir. 1954) Cited 15 timesNo. 11236. Argued May 17, 1954. Decided August 16, 1954. Melvin Spaeth, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Arnold Ordman, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Frank G. Smith, Clearfield, Pa. (Frank A. Whitsett, Clearfield, Pa., Smith, Maine, Whitsett Lee, Clearfield, Pa., on the brief), for respondent. Before McLAUGHLIN, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges. STALEY,