§

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

276 N.L.R.B. 1053 (N.L.R.B. 1985)
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Letter Carriers v. Austin

    418 U.S. 264 (1974)   Cited 609 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union newsletter's description of a “scab” as a “traitor” could not be construed as a factual assertion

  2. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board

    324 U.S. 793 (1945)   Cited 495 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

  3. Virginia Elec. Power Co. v. N.L.R.B

    703 F.2d 79 (4th Cir. 1983)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that the conflict between competing unions justifies the employer's request that employees wear small and less gaudy buttons

  4. Davison-Paxon, Div. of R. H. Macy v. N.L.R.B

    462 F.2d 364 (5th Cir. 1972)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying special circumstances approach to rule banning large and conspicuous button on sales floor

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Cambria Clay Prod

    215 F.2d 48 (6th Cir. 1954)   Cited 35 times

    No. 12072. July 7, 1954. Frederick U. Reel, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, David P. Findling, A. Norman Somers, Frederick U. Reel, Thomas R. Haley, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. J. Mack Swigert, Cincinnati, Ohio (J. Mack Swigert, Charles D. Lindberg, Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief; Miller, Searl Fitch, Portsmouth, Ohio, of counsel), for respondent. Before McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and GOURLEY, District Judge. McALLISTER, Circuit Judge. The National Labor

  6. Caterpillar Tractor v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    230 F.2d 357 (7th Cir. 1956)   Cited 25 times
    Stating that employer can prohibit employees from wearing buttons emblazoned with the slogan "Don't be a Scab" because of slogan's inherent tension to incite unrest and resentment; however, the restriction does not include "passive inoffensive advertisement of organizational aims and interests . . . which in no way interferes with discipline and production"

  7. Maryland Drydock Co. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    183 F.2d 538 (4th Cir. 1950)   Cited 19 times
    In Maryland Drydock Co. v. NLRB, 183 F.2d 538, 539 (4th Cir. 1950), we held that an employer was entitled to maintain discipline by prohibiting "defamatory and insulting statements which reasonably tend to destroy such discipline....