§

Springfield Garment Manufacturing Co.

153 N.L.R.B. 1126 (N.L.R.B. 1965)
Springfield Garment Manufacturing Co.

14 Cited authorities

  1. 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".

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. McGahey

    233 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1956)   Cited 133 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. McGahey, 233 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1956), this court described casual and moderate inquiries, even as to union preference, absent evidence indicating that the employee has reason to consider the inquiries a threat of reprisals, as not constituting an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8(a)(1).

  3. Surprenant Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B

    341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 60 times
    In Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965) this Court approved as non-threatening, language of the employer which was much stronger than that used in the present case.

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ace Comb Co.

    342 F.2d 841 (8th Cir. 1965)   Cited 32 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Ace Comb Co., 342 F.2d 841 (8th Cir. 1965) and N.L.R.B. v. Bird Machine Co., 161 F.2d 589 (1st Cir. 1947), where instructions to supervisory employees not to make coercive statements did not relieve employer of imputed liability it is indicated that it might be otherwise if these instructions had been communicated to the employees.

  5. Welch Scientific Company v. N.L.R.B

    340 F.2d 199 (2d Cir. 1965)   Cited 24 times
    In Welch Scientific Co. v. NLRB, 340 F.2d 199 (2 Cir. 1965), neither the Trial Examiner's report nor the Board's decision referred to the three-fold criteria, and the Board's brief in this court sought to justify the order as to interrogation only on the basis of lack of any proper purpose.

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Tennessee Packers, Inc.

    339 F.2d 203 (6th Cir. 1964)   Cited 23 times

    No. 15751. December 18, 1964. Theodore J. Martineau, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. George V. Gardner, Washington, D.C., Frederick F. Holroyd, Charleston, W. Va., Gardner, Gandal Holroyd, Washington, D.C., on brief, for respondent. Before MILLER and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit

  7. Beaver Valley Canning Company v. N.L.R.B

    332 F.2d 429 (8th Cir. 1964)   Cited 17 times

    No. 17469. June 1, 1964. Rehearing Denied June 26, 1964. Neill Garrett, of Gibson, Stewart Garrett, Des Moines, Iowa, made argument for the petitioner and filed brief. William J. Avrutis, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., made argument for the respondent and filed brief with Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Assistant Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., and Melvin Pollack, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. Before

  8. Lawson Milk Company v. N.L.R.B

    317 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1963)   Cited 18 times

    No. 14949. May 28, 1963. Bruce W. Bierce, Akron, Ohio, Brouse, McDowell, May, Bierce Wortman, Akron, Ohio, on brief, for petitioner. Elliott Moore, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate, General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief, for respondent. Before CECIL, Chief Judge, and WEICK and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge. Petitioner, Lawson

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Parkhurst Manufacturing Company

    317 F.2d 513 (8th Cir. 1963)   Cited 18 times

    No. 17095. May 16, 1963. Gary Green, Atty., N.L.R.B., made argument for petitioner and Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Allison W. Brown, Jr., and Robert A. Armstrong, Attys. for N.L.R.B., were on the brief. John K. Pickens, Washington, D.C., made argument for respondent and William T. Stephens, Washington, D.C., was with him on the brief. Before VOGEL, BLACKMUN and RIDGE, Circuit Judges. BLACKMUN, Circuit Judge

  10. Wayside Press v. National Labor Relations Bd.

    206 F.2d 862 (9th Cir. 1953)   Cited 28 times
    In Wayside Press, Inc., v. N.L.R.B., 9 Cir., 206 F.2d 862, we held that an employer's furnishing of facilities and assistance for the organization of an inside union does not establish employer domination of such union, unless it occurs in a setting of such manifest employer preference for the proposed independent union or hostility toward an outside union that it intrudes upon the freedom of choice which the Act was designed to secure to employees.