§
Speco Corp.

5 Cited authorities

  1. 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.”

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.

    360 U.S. 301 (1959)   Cited 106 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred

  3. G.W. Galloway Co. v. N.L.R.B

    856 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1988)   Cited 16 times
    Requiring a "significant factual affiliation" between complaint and charge allegations

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Central Power Light Company

    425 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1970)   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Central Pwr. Light Co., 425 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1970), the original charge alleged a discriminatory discharge of an employee and stated the company had violated section 7 rights "by other acts and conduct."

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kohler Company

    220 F.2d 3 (7th Cir. 1955)   Cited 30 times

    Nos. 11272, 11283. March 7, 1955. Rehearing Denied April 7, 1955. David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Irving M. Herman, Atty., George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Samuel M. Singer, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for National Labor Relations Board. William F. Howe, Washington, D.C., Lyman C. Conger, Edward J. Hammer, Kohler, Wis., Jerome Powell, Gall, Lane Howe, Washington, D.C., for Kohler Co. Max Raskin, Milwaukee, Wis., David Rabinovitz, Sheboygan