Silver Fleet Motor Express

37 Cited authorities

Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board
379 U.S. 203 (1964) Cited 731 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board
313 U.S. 177 (1941) Cited 871 times
Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”
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.”
Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board
185 F.2d 732 (D.C. Cir. 1950) Cited 162 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Joy Silk the Court held that when an employer could have no doubt as to the majority status or when an employer refuses recognition of a union "due to a desire to gain time and to take action to dissipate the union's majority, the refusal is no longer justifiable and constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain set forth in section 8(a)(5) of the Act".
Bourne v. N.L.R.B
332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964) Cited 93 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.
Texas Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
336 F.2d 128 (5th Cir. 1964) Cited 64 times
In Texas Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 336 F.2d 128 (5 Cir. 1964), the court held that charges filed by the Union that alleged generally that the company had "engaged in * * * unfair labor practices within the meaning of" Section 8(a)(1) and (3), and then alleged specifically various acts of coercion against a named employee was sufficient to include unfair labor practices by the company against other employees which were not mentioned in the charges.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. River Togs, Inc.
382 F.2d 198 (2d Cir. 1967) Cited 48 times
In NLRB v. River Togs, Inc. (2d Cir. July 27, 1967) 382 F.2d 198, however, we recognized some of the limitations of the authorization card procedure, calling for scrutiny of the manner of execution of the cards.
N.L.R.B. v. Flomatic Corporation
347 F.2d 74 (2d Cir. 1965) Cited 50 times
In NLRB v. Flomatic Corp., 347 F.2d 74, 76-77 (2 Cir. 1965), this court held that various promises of benefits and an invitation to deal directly with the company violated § 8(a)(1).
N.L.R.B. v. Cumberland Shoe Corporation
351 F.2d 917 (6th Cir. 1965) Cited 49 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Cumberland we emphasized that "In no instance did any employee testify that he was told that the election was the only purpose of the card."
Irving Air Chute Company v. N.L.R.B
350 F.2d 176 (2d Cir. 1965) Cited 49 times
In Irving Air Chute Co. v. N.L.R.B., 2 Cir., 350 F.2d 176, 182, the Court in allowing enforcement of the Board's order cited many cases for the proposition, "`It is for the Board not the courts to determine how the effect of prior unfair labor practices may be expunged'."

Silver Fleet Motor Express

37 Cited authorities

Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

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.”

In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

In NLRB v. River Togs, Inc. (2d Cir. July 27, 1967) 382 F.2d 198, however, we recognized some of the limitations of the authorization card procedure, calling for scrutiny of the manner of execution of the cards.

In NLRB v. Flomatic Corp., 347 F.2d 74, 76-77 (2 Cir. 1965), this court held that various promises of benefits and an invitation to deal directly with the company violated § 8(a)(1).

In Cumberland we emphasized that "In no instance did any employee testify that he was told that the election was the only purpose of the card."

In Irving Air Chute Co. v. N.L.R.B., 2 Cir., 350 F.2d 176, 182, the Court in allowing enforcement of the Board's order cited many cases for the proposition, "`It is for the Board not the courts to determine how the effect of prior unfair labor practices may be expunged'."