Spruce Pine Manufacturing Co.

8 Cited authorities

Pittsburgh Glass Co. v. Board
313 U.S. 146 (1941) Cited 294 times
In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.
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".
Wellington Mill, W. Point Mfg. v. N.L.R.B
330 F.2d 579 (4th Cir. 1964) Cited 49 times
Stating that General Counsel's "refusal to [issue a complaint] is final and unappealable"
N.L.R.B. v. Threads, Incorporated
308 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1962) Cited 37 times
In NLRB v. Threads, Inc., 308 F.2d 1, 9 (4th Cir. 1962), in which I concurred, we made the logic-defying statement that prior (or presumably simultaneous) unlawful labor practices can "not transform protected free speech into unlawful and unprotected speech."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. S. Bleachery
257 F.2d 235 (4th Cir. 1958) Cited 33 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that the essential inquiry is whether the employer shares the power of management
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Universal Camera
179 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1950) Cited 24 times
No. 54, Docket 21395. Argued December 6, 1949. Decided January 10, 1950. A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ruth Weyand, Asst. Gen. Counsel, William J. Avrutis, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman Hays, New York City, Frederick R. Livingston, New York City, for respondent. On petition of the National Labor Relations Board for an order, "enforcing" an order of the Board to "cease
N.L.R.B. v. Jackson Maintenance Corporation
283 F.2d 569 (2d Cir. 1960) Cited 5 times
No. 40, Docket 26255. Argued October 4, 1960. Decided October 28, 1960. Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Duane B. Beeson, Elliott Moore, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Friedlander Gaines, New York City (Henry G. Friedlander, Norbert Ruttenberg, Edward Cherney, New York City, of counsel), for respondent. Before HINCKS, WATERMAN and MOORE, Circuit Judges. WATERMAN
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,092 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

Spruce Pine Manufacturing Co.

8 Cited authorities

In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.

Stating that General Counsel's "refusal to [issue a complaint] is final and unappealable"

In NLRB v. Threads, Inc., 308 F.2d 1, 9 (4th Cir. 1962), in which I concurred, we made the logic-defying statement that prior (or presumably simultaneous) unlawful labor practices can "not transform protected free speech into unlawful and unprotected speech."

Stating that the essential inquiry is whether the employer shares the power of management

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"