Tekform Products Co.
3 Cited authorities
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding 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.”
N.L.R.B. v. Gruber's Super Market, Inc.
501 F.2d 697 (7th Cir. 1974) Cited 16 timesIn NLRB v Gruber's Super Market (501 F.2d 697) the employer called a meeting of employees three days before election and (1) asked each why he wanted a union, and (2) told the employees that if the union did not win, the employees would get a raise.
N.L.R.B. v. Tayko Industries, Inc.
543 F.2d 1120 (9th Cir. 1976) Cited 3 timesNo. 75-1147. October 29, 1976. William Stewart, Atty. (argued), of NLRB, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. J. Mark Montobbio (argued), of Severson, Werson, Berke Melchoir, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. Before TRASK, GOODWIN and WALLACE, Circuit Judges. TRASK, Circuit Judge: Upon charges filed by Automotive Teamsters and Chauffeurs Local 165 that Tayko Industries, Inc. (Tayko) had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations