§

Salem Leasing Corp.

271 N.L.R.B. 86 (N.L.R.B. 1984)
Salem Leasing Corp.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.

    370 U.S. 9 (1962)   Cited 206 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

  2. Di Carlo v. United States

    6 F.2d 364 (2d Cir. 1925)   Cited 229 times
    In DiCarlo v. United States, 2 Cir., 6 F.2d 364, 366, certiorari denied 268 U.S. 706, 45 S.Ct. 640, 69 L.Ed. 1168, a majority of this court refused to pass on the question whether such prior consistent identifications were admissible although admitting that a majority of the decided cases apparently held that they were not. There is other authority that similar testimony is admissible which we think states the better rule.

  3. Dreis Krump Mfg. Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    544 F.2d 320 (7th Cir. 1976)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding Board's refusal to defer on ground that award would violate employee's § 7 rights.

  4. United States v. Leslie

    542 F.2d 285 (5th Cir. 1976)   Cited 46 times
    Affirming the admission of hearsay under 803 although the record showed no notice, because the defendant was not harmed by the lack of notice

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Datapoint Corp.

    642 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 34 times
    In Datapoint, an employee on the factory floor loudly protested an employer's decision to lay off all but three employees for a week-long period while the company department relocated.

  6. ARO, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    596 F.2d 713 (6th Cir. 1979)   Cited 33 times
    In ARO, Inc. v. NLRB, 596 F.2d 713, 718 (6th Cir. 1979), this court held, "For an individual claim or complaint to amount to concerted action under the Act it must... be made with the object of inducing or preparing for group action...."

  7. United States v. Castro-Ayon

    537 F.2d 1055 (9th Cir. 1976)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that, at least in some circumstances, a sworn statement given during a police-station interrogation could be admissible as substantive evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)

  8. Mushroom Transportation Company v. N.L.R.B

    330 F.2d 683 (3d Cir. 1964)   Cited 48 times
    In Mushroom Transportation Co. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 683, 685 (3d Cir. 1964), we held that to qualify as concerted activity "it must appear at the very least that [the conduct] was engaged in with the object of initiating or inducing or preparing for group action or that it had some relation to group action in the interest of the employees."

  9. Hugh H. Wilson Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    414 F.2d 1345 (3d Cir. 1969)   Cited 37 times
    Finding concerted activity because "[i]n substance, the employees had a gripe. They assembled. They presented their grievance to management. . . ."

  10. Hendricks County Rural Elec., Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    627 F.2d 766 (7th Cir. 1980)   Cited 22 times

    No. 80-1283. Argued June 3, 1980. July 21, 1980. Warren D. Krebs, Parr, Richey, Obremskey Morton, Lebanon, Ind., for petitioner. Richard Michael Fischl, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before SPRECHER and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, Senior District Judge. Senior District Judge William J. Campbell of the Northern District of Illinois is sitting by designation SPRECHER, Circuit Judge. This review causes us to examine