Board v. Hearst Publications

Determining whether newsboys were independent contractors or employees under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA")

Radio Officers v. Labor Board

Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.

Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

Labor Board v. Parts Co.

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.”

Teamsters Local v. Labor Board

Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria

Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8

Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board

Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.

Dyer v. MacDougall

Holding that witness demeanor may persuade a jury to "assume the truth of what he denied," but a court cannot allow a case to go to the jury on such evidence

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Whitin Mach. Works

In National Labor Relations Board v. Whitin Machine Works, 204 F.2d 883 (1st Cir.1953), for example, an assistant supervisor in his employer's accounting department was, upon a consideration of the nature of his work, determined not to be a supervisor for purposes of litigating his discharge from employment, and, therefore, he was entitled to the protections of the National Labor Relations Act. 204 F.2d at 886.

N.L.R.B. v. Solo Cup Company