§
Textron, Inc.

5 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.

    389 U.S. 375 (1967)   Cited 233 times
    In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.

  2. Southwire Company v. N.L.R.B

    383 F.2d 235 (5th Cir. 1967)   Cited 34 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing an employer's right to express an opinion regarding unionization rather than its right to unionize

  3. Daniel Construction Company v. N.L.R.B

    341 F.2d 805 (4th Cir. 1965)   Cited 36 times
    In Daniel Construction Co. v. N.L.R.B., 341 F.2d 805, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 831, 86 S.Ct. 70, 15 L.Ed.2d 75 (1965), this court considered the identical question presented here. The Board, having found that the company had violated section 8(a) (1) during the course of an election campaign and that such conduct had interfered with the employees' free choice, set the election aside, and ordered that a new election be held. The company sought review of both matters in this court.

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. TRW-Semiconductors, Inc.

    385 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1967)   Cited 20 times

    No. 21549. November 24, 1967. Gregory L. Hellrung, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (argued) for petitioner. Stanley Tobin (argued), Hill, Farrer Burrill, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Before BARNES and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and HAUK, District Judge. DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge. Petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board. The trial examiner found, and the Board adopted his findings, that respondent employer interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees with respect

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Herman Wilson Lumber Company

    355 F.2d 426 (8th Cir. 1966)   Cited 11 times

    No. 18022. January 31, 1966. Melvin Pollack, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., made argument for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Julius Rosenbaum, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were with him on the brief. Joseph Alton Jenkins, Dallas, Tex., made argument for respondent; Joseph Alton Jenkins Associates, Dallas, Tex., and Gaines N. Houston, Little Rock, Ark., were with him on the brief. Before MATTHES and GIBSON, Circuit Judges, and LARSON