§

Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co.

138 N.L.R.B. 615 (N.L.R.B. 1962)
Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co.

14 Cited authorities

  1. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board

    324 U.S. 793 (1945)   Cited 495 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

  2. Labor Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co.

    351 U.S. 105 (1956)   Cited 294 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot

  3. May Stores Co. v. Labor Board

    326 U.S. 376 (1945)   Cited 257 times
    Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"

  4. Labor Board v. Steelworkers

    357 U.S. 357 (1958)   Cited 72 times
    In United Steelworkers, the Court warned that the NLRA "does not command that labor organizations as a matter of abstract law, under all circumstances, be protected in the use of every possible means of reaching the minds of individual workers, nor that they are entitled to use a medium of communication simply because the employer is using it."

  5. Labor Board v. Stowe Spinning Co.

    336 U.S. 226 (1949)   Cited 46 times
    In NLRB v. Stowe Spinning Co., 336 U.S. 226, 232-33, 69 S.Ct. 541, 544, 93 L.Ed. 638 (1949), the Court declined to enforce an order requiring an employer to make its meeting hall available to a union; the Board might legitimately bar discrimination against unions, the Court said, but could not require the employer to prefer unions over other potential users.

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Walton Manufacturing Company

    289 F.2d 177 (5th Cir. 1961)   Cited 32 times

    No. 18345. March 17, 1961. Russell Specter, Atty., N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Melvin Pollack, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Robert T. Thompson, Alexander E. Wilson, Jr., Wilson, Branch Barwick, J. Frank Ogletree, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent. Before RIVES and WISDOM, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENBERRY, District Judge. RIVES, Circuit Judge. This petition seeks enforcement

  7. Time-O-Matic, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    264 F.2d 96 (7th Cir. 1959)   Cited 32 times

    No. 12424. March 5, 1959. Edward B. Miller, Merrill Shepard, Willis S. Ryza, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner, Time-O-Matic, Inc. Pope Ballard, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for petitioner. Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel, Atty., Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Fred S. Landess, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before DUFFY, Chief Judge and HASTINGS and PARKINSON, Circuit Judges. HASTINGS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Rockwell Mfg. Co.

    271 F.2d 109 (3d Cir. 1959)   Cited 22 times
    In NLRB v. Rockwell Mfg. Co., 271 F.2d 109 (3d Cir. 1959), after considering the Supreme Court's decision in Republic Aviation, and the effect of that Court's subsequent decisions in Babcock Wilcox and NLRB v. United Steelworkers of America, 357 U.S. 357, 78 S.Ct. 1268, 2 L.Ed.2d 1383 (1958), on Republic Aviation, this court held that the Board must consider the element of alternative means of communication before invalidating a no-distribution rule which an employer has attempted to justify.

  9. National Labor Bd. v. Lake Superior Lumber

    167 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1948)   Cited 36 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Lake Superior Lumber Corp., 6 Cir., 167 F.2d 147, 151, this court, in considering a similar contention, referred to the language of the Supreme Court in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265, to the following effect: "`We do not agree that the corporation's property interests settle the question.

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Firedoor Corporation of America

    291 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1961)   Cited 17 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Firedoor Corp. of America, 2 Cir., 291 F.2d 328, 331, the rule under discussion is stated, "Interrogation of employees is legal, when the questioning is not accompanied by any explicit threats, cf. N.L.R.B. v. Beaner [Beaver] Meadow Creamery, 3 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 247, if under all the circumstances coercion is not implicit in the questioning.