§

The Dow Chemical Co.

216 N.L.R.B. 82 (N.L.R.B. 1975)
The Dow Chemical Co.

9 Cited authorities

  1. H. K. Porter Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    397 U.S. 99 (1970)   Cited 222 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the NLRB is "without power to compel a company or a union to agree to any substantive contractual provision of a collective-bargaining agreement."

  2. Labor Board v. American Ins. Co.

    343 U.S. 395 (1952)   Cited 269 times
    Holding the degree of discretion in a CBA "is an issue for determination across the bargaining table, not by the Board"

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Reed Prince MFG

    205 F.2d 131 (1st Cir. 1953)   Cited 118 times
    In Reed Prince, supra, this court affirmed the Board's finding of refusal to bargain in good faith only "[a]fter an attentive review of the entire record of the bargaining negotiations."

  4. Dallas Gen. Drivers, W. H., L. v. N.L.R.B

    355 F.2d 842 (D.C. Cir. 1966)   Cited 40 times
    Reviewing factors considered in impasse cases

  5. Hughes Tool Co. v. National Labor Relations Bd.

    147 F.2d 69 (5th Cir. 1945)   Cited 60 times
    In Hughes Tool Co. v. NLRB, 147 F.2d 69 (5th Cir. 1945), the court dealt with a prior version of § 9(a) which did not expressly guarantee the Union's right to be present at the adjustment of grievances. Nevertheless, the court found that such a right existed, and stated that it could be waived.

  6. N.L.R.B. v. United Nuclear Corporation

    381 F.2d 972 (10th Cir. 1967)   Cited 25 times

    No. 8887. August 23, 1967. Gregory L. Hellrung, Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli, and Glen M. Bendixsen, Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner. George H. Cohen, Washington, D.C., for intervenor. Leonard L. Pickering, Albuquerque, N.M., for respondent. Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and HICKEY, Circuit Judges. MURRAH, Chief Judge. This is an unfair labor practice proceeding in which the trial examiner found that the employer violated Secs. 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Natl. Shoes

    208 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1953)   Cited 29 times
    Deciding that the employerengaged in an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8 where the record contained evidence of “[l]ong delays unaccounted for in the matter of correspondence and the preparation of documents, the postponement of meetings of the negotiators for weeks at a time, and the reopening of questions previously settled”

  8. Local 14055, United Steelworkers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    524 F.2d 853 (D.C. Cir. 1975)   Cited 2 times

    No. 74-1632. Argued May 22, 1975. Decided December 15, 1975. Carl B. Frankel, with whom Michael H. Gottesman, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for petitioner. John H. Ferguson, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., were on the brief for respondent. William A. Jackson, with whom Robert E. Williams, was on the brief for intervenor, The Dow Chemical Co. Gerard C. Smetana, Chicago

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Company

    365 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1966)   Cited 9 times

    No. 21779. June 27, 1966. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Theodore J. Martineau, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Melvin Pollack, Atty., N.L.R.B., for petitioner. David L. Hooper, Abilene, Tex., Hooper Perry, Abilene, Tex., for respondent. Before RIVES, BROWN and MOORE, Circuit Judges. Of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation. PER CURIAM: The Board seeks enforcement of its order against the respondent. The