§

Teksid Aluminum Foundry

311 N.L.R.B. 711 (N.L.R.B. 1993)
Teksid Aluminum Foundry

11 Cited authorities

  1. Edison Co. v. Labor Board

    305 U.S. 197 (1938)   Cited 19,484 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

  2. 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.”

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 358 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  4. Southwire Co. v. N.L.R.B

    820 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that absence of evidence that employer discharged any other employee for similar violation supported finding of pretext

  5. Hotel Emp. Restaurant Emp. Un. v. N.L.R.B

    760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 26 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Affirming Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176

  6. United Pack., F. A. W. Int. U. v. N.L.R.B

    416 F.2d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 1969)   Cited 37 times

    Nos. 21627, 21825. Argued November 25, 1968. Decided February 7, 1969. Petitions for Rehearing Denied May 12, 1969. Certiorari Denied November 10, 1969. See 90 S.Ct. 216. Mr. Richard F. Watt, Chicago, Ill., with whom Messrs. Eugene Cotton, Chicago, Ill., and Michael H. Gottesman, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for petitioner in No. 21,627. Mr. Michael H. Gottesman, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for intervenor in No. 21,825. Mr. John Edward Price, Fort Worth, Tex., for petitioner in

  7. Frito-Lay, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    585 F.2d 62 (3d Cir. 1978)   Cited 23 times
    Reopening of uneconomic plant would cost one million dollars plus operating loss of several hundred thousand dollars a year

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

    694 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1982)   Cited 9 times
    Upholding NLRB's determination that employee's repeated statement—“I'm going to see that [expletive] fry”—was “at most ... ambiguous,” and reasoning that “however sympathetic we might be to the Company's plight, we simply cannot adopt the Company's arguments [that the comments were so extreme that they necessarily fall outside the Act's protection] because our review is restricted to the substantial evidence test”

  9. Frito Company, Western Division v. N.L.R.B

    330 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1964)   Cited 26 times

    Nos. 18350, 18400. April 7, 1964. Hill, Farrer Burrill and Ray L. Johnson, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner Frito Co. Daniel R. Thompson, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages (No. 18350). Hill, Farrer Burrill, Carl M. Gould, and Stanley E. Tobin, Los Angeles, Cal., for amicus curiae American Research Merchandising Institute (No. 18350). Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Mueller Brass Co.

    501 F.2d 680 (5th Cir. 1974)   Cited 14 times
    Explaining and applying doctrine of provoked insubordination