§
The Mead Corp.

12 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. SCM Corp. v. Advance Business Systems & Supply Co.

    397 U.S. 920 (1970)   Cited 200 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a delay of three months where only prejudice shown was that the defendants could not recall details of the days in the distant past; no special circumstances

  3. Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.

    370 U.S. 9 (1962)   Cited 206 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

  4. Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board

    321 U.S. 702 (1944)   Cited 252 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.

  5. 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"

  6. Smith v. United States

    375 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1967)   Cited 148 times
    Holding that "§ 2680 exempts the government from liability for exercising the discretion inherent in the prosecutorial function of the Attorney General, no matter whether these decisions are made during the investigation or prosecution of offenses"

  7. Laidlaw Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    414 F.2d 99 (7th Cir. 1969)   Cited 81 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that while an employer is not obligated to discharge permanent replacements to make room for returning economic strikers, the employer must place the former strikers on a preferential recall list

  8. Bourne v. N.L.R.B

    332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964)   Cited 93 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Solo Cup Company

    237 F.2d 521 (8th Cir. 1956)   Cited 40 times

    No. 15524. October 18, 1956. Rehearing Denied November 16, 1956. Samuel M. Singer, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were with him on the brief), for petitioner. John J. Hasburgh, Kansas City, Mo. (Carl E. Enggas and Watson S. Marshall Enggas, Kansas City, Mo., were with him on the brief), for respondent. Before WOODROUGH

  10. Dobbs Houses, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    325 F.2d 531 (5th Cir. 1963)   Cited 25 times

    No. 19536. December 11, 1963. Newell N. Fowler, Memphis, Tenn., Robert McD. Smith, Birmingham, Ala., William Fortas, Memphis, Tenn., for petitioner, Lange, Simpson, Robinson Somervlle, Birmingham, Ala., Fowler Fortas, Memphis, Tenn., of counsel. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Warren M. Davison, Atty., Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Robert Sewell, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before RIVES, JONES and BELL, Circuit Judges.