Scolding Locks Corp.

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.”
N.L.R.B. v. Decker
296 F.2d 338 (8th Cir. 1961) Cited 13 times
No. 16738. November 14, 1961. Russell Specter, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., made argument for petitioner. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel-Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Melvin Pollack, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were with him on the brief. John H. Mitchell, Fort Dodge, Iowa, made argument for respondent and was on the brief. Before SANBORN, MATTHES and RIDGE, Circuit Judges. RIDGE, Circuit Judge. This