ยง
The Kroger Co.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,035 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. WKRG-TV, Inc.

    470 F.2d 1302 (5th Cir. 1973)   Cited 33 times
    Enforcing Gissel Order where employer interrogated employees, promised benefits if the union lost, prohibited solicitation, and otherwise interfered with unionization efforts

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Milco, Inc.

    388 F.2d 133 (2d Cir. 1968)   Cited 32 times

    Nos. 108, 109, Dockets 31412, 31418. Argued October 19, 1967. Decided January 2, 1968. Corinna Lothar Metcalf, Atty., NLRB; Arnold Ordman, General Counsel; Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel; Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel; Gary Green, Attorney, NLRB, for petitioner. Harry H. Rains, Bertrand B. Pogrebin, Mineola, N.Y., for respondents. Before WATERMAN, MOORE and HAYS, Circuit Judges. WATERMAN, Circuit Judge: The National Labor Relations Board, having found that respondents had engaged

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Louisiana Manufacturing Company

    374 F.2d 696 (8th Cir. 1967)   Cited 32 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Louisiana Manufacturing Company, 374 F.2d 696, 701-703 (8th Cir. 1967), this court was faced with the question of whether similar statements could be construed as being threats of economic reprisal.

  5. N.L.R.B. v. American Cable Systems, Inc.

    414 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1969)   Cited 24 times
    In American Cable, this court, interpreting Gissel just a month after it was decided, required that the Board make specific findings that the union had a card majority, that the unfair labor practices were "serious and extensive," that traditional remedies would be unlikely to insure a fair election, and that the employees' interests would be best served by a bargaining order.

  6. Time-O-Matic, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    264 F.2d 96 (7th Cir. 1959)   Cited 32 times

    No. 12424. March 5, 1959. Edward B. Miller, Merrill Shepard, Willis S. Ryza, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner, Time-O-Matic, Inc. Pope Ballard, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for petitioner. Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel, Atty., Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Fred S. Landess, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before DUFFY, Chief Judge and HASTINGS and PARKINSON, Circuit Judges. HASTINGS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Spotlight Company

    440 F.2d 928 (8th Cir. 1971)   Cited 5 times

    No. 20549. April 1, 1971. Rehearing Denied May 10, 1971. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Michael S. Winer, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Smith, Williams, Friday Bowen, James W. Moore, Little Rock, Ark., for respondent. Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, GIBSON and LAY, Circuit Judges. GIBSON, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board petitions, pursuant to ยง 10(e) of the National