Stanton Industries

15 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Yeshiva University
444 U.S. 672 (1980) Cited 183 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that all faculty members are managers for purposes of federal labor law even though they lack any legal instruments of control
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.”
Tripoli Co., Inc. v. Wella Corp.
400 U.S. 831 (1970) Cited 137 times
Declining to review under Hobbs Act district court's exercise of jurisdiction of claim against Federal Communications Commission because plaintiff-appellant had also filed timely petitions for review with court of appeals
Florida Power Light v. Electrical Workers
417 U.S. 790 (1974) Cited 96 times
In Florida Power Light Co. v. IBEW, Local 641, 417 U.S. 790, 804-05, 94 S.Ct. 2737, 2744-45, 41 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974), the Supreme Court held that no § 8(b)(1)(B) violation occurs unless the disciplined conduct adversely affects the performance of his or her § 8(b)(1)(B) duties.
Beasley v. Food Fair of North Carolina
416 U.S. 653 (1974) Cited 92 times
Holding that state law cannot afford supervisors a cause of action that they would not have under the NLRA as section 14 relieves "the employer of obligations under any law, either national or local, relating to collective bargaining"
Labor Board v. Burnup Sims
379 U.S. 21 (1964) Cited 106 times 21 Legal Analyses
Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"
International Union
459 F.2d 1329 (D.C. Cir. 1972) Cited 118 times
Holding that where a “judge plays a role in suppression of the evidence, the force of [any adverse] inference is dissipated”
Laidlaw Corporation v. N.L.R.B
414 F.2d 99 (7th Cir. 1969) Cited 81 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that while an employer is not obligated to discharge permanent replacements to make room for returning economic strikers, the employer must place the former strikers on a preferential recall list
Automobile Salesmen's Union v. N.L.R.B
711 F.2d 383 (D.C. Cir. 1983) Cited 26 times
Summarizing post-1982 standard for finding violations of the Act in disciplinary actions taken against supervisors
United States v. Zane
489 F.2d 269 (5th Cir. 1974) Cited 25 times
No. 73-2895. Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I. December 19, 1973. Certiorari Denied April 22, 1974. Percy J. Blount, Augusta, Ga., for defendant-appellant. R. Jackson B. Smith, Jr., U.S. Atty., Edmund A. Booth, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Augusta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and

Stanton Industries

15 Cited authorities

Holding that all faculty members are managers for purposes of federal labor law even though they lack any legal instruments of control

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.”

Declining to review under Hobbs Act district court's exercise of jurisdiction of claim against Federal Communications Commission because plaintiff-appellant had also filed timely petitions for review with court of appeals

In Florida Power Light Co. v. IBEW, Local 641, 417 U.S. 790, 804-05, 94 S.Ct. 2737, 2744-45, 41 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974), the Supreme Court held that no § 8(b)(1)(B) violation occurs unless the disciplined conduct adversely affects the performance of his or her § 8(b)(1)(B) duties.

Holding that state law cannot afford supervisors a cause of action that they would not have under the NLRA as section 14 relieves "the employer of obligations under any law, either national or local, relating to collective bargaining"

Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

Holding that where a “judge plays a role in suppression of the evidence, the force of [any adverse] inference is dissipated”

Holding that while an employer is not obligated to discharge permanent replacements to make room for returning economic strikers, the employer must place the former strikers on a preferential recall list

Summarizing post-1982 standard for finding violations of the Act in disciplinary actions taken against supervisors