The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

24 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.
388 U.S. 26 (1967) Cited 322 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
Labor Board v. Erie Resistor Corp.
373 U.S. 221 (1963) Cited 358 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"
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.
Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.
312 U.S. 426 (1941) Cited 506 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"
Garment Workers v. Labor Board
366 U.S. 731 (1961) Cited 213 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union cannot represent a group of employees for which it does not enjoy majority support
Drivers Union v. Meadowmoor Co.
312 U.S. 287 (1941) Cited 382 times
Holding an injunction banning picketing was "justified only by the violence that induced it and only so long as it counteracts a continuing intimidation"
Labor Board v. Burnup Sims
379 U.S. 21 (1964) Cited 106 times 21 Legal Analyses
Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"
Electric Battery Co. v. Shimadzu
307 U.S. 5 (1939) Cited 121 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Shimadzu, the Supreme Court explained that the public-use bar applies to uses of the invention "not purposely hidden" and held that the use of a process in the ordinary course of business—where the process was "well known to the employees" and no "efforts were made to conceal" it from anyone else—is a public use.
National Labor Relations Bd. v. Deena Artware
198 F.2d 645 (6th Cir. 1952) Cited 43 times
In National Labor Relations Board v. Deena Artware, Inc., 198 F.2d 645, this Court granted an order of enforcement similar to one in the case now before us. The Board's Supplemental Decision and Order for the payment of back wages was enforced in that case by this Court in National Labor Relations Board v. Deena Artware, Incorporated, reported at 228 F.2d 871.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thayer Co.
213 F.2d 748 (1st Cir. 1954) Cited 40 times
In Thayer, the court first announced that if the activity causing dismissal was protected under § 7 of the Act then denial of reinstatement was unlawful. If the activity was unprotected under § 7, however, the legality of the denial was to be determined according to a balancing test.

The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

24 Cited authorities

Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"

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.

Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"

Holding that a union cannot represent a group of employees for which it does not enjoy majority support

Holding an injunction banning picketing was "justified only by the violence that induced it and only so long as it counteracts a continuing intimidation"

Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

In Thayer, the court first announced that if the activity causing dismissal was protected under § 7 of the Act then denial of reinstatement was unlawful. If the activity was unprotected under § 7, however, the legality of the denial was to be determined according to a balancing test.