§

The Pembek Oil Corp.

165 N.L.R.B. 367 (N.L.R.B. 1967)
The Pembek Oil Corp.

18 Cited authorities

  1. Radio Officers v. Labor Board

    347 U.S. 17 (1954)   Cited 470 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

  2. Labor Board v. Mackay Co.

    304 U.S. 333 (1938)   Cited 535 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices

  3. Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    321 U.S. 678 (1944)   Cited 269 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8

  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. Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board

    185 F.2d 732 (D.C. Cir. 1950)   Cited 162 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Joy Silk the Court held that when an employer could have no doubt as to the majority status or when an employer refuses recognition of a union "due to a desire to gain time and to take action to dissipate the union's majority, the refusal is no longer justifiable and constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain set forth in section 8(a)(5) of the Act".

  6. Amalgamated Clothing Wrks. of Am. v. N.L.R.B

    371 F.2d 740 (D.C. Cir. 1966)   Cited 29 times
    Considering employer's "lack of disavowal" of individual's actions

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Joseph Antell, Inc.

    358 F.2d 880 (1st Cir. 1966)   Cited 26 times
    In Antell, the court stated that the smallness of a plant, or a staff, may be material as bearing on the knowledge on the part of the employer of an employee's union activities, but only to the extent that it may be shown to have made it likely that the employer observed, or otherwise learned about the activity in question.

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Great E. Color Lithographic Corp.

    309 F.2d 352 (2d Cir. 1962)   Cited 21 times

    No. 53, Docket 27470. Argued October 19, 1962. Decided November 1, 1962. A. Brummel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallett-Prevost, Assistant General Counsel, and Melvin Pollack, Washington, D.C., on the brief) for petitioner. James E. Birdsall of Warner Birdsall, New York City, for respondent. Before WATERMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges. HAYS, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations

  9. Pizza Products Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    369 F.2d 431 (6th Cir. 1966)   Cited 15 times

    No. 16697. December 7, 1966. George R. Hewes, Toledo, Ohio, for petitioners. Joseph C. Thackery, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Before O'SULLIVAN, PHILLIPS and PECK, Circuit Judges. HARRY PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge. A joint petition to review and set aside the order of the National Labor Relations Board

  10. Morand Bros. Bev. Co. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    190 F.2d 576 (7th Cir. 1951)   Cited 33 times

    No. 10335. July 23, 1951. Samuel L. Golan, Chester F. McNamara, Leonard W. Golan, all of Chicago, Ill., Golan Golan, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for petitioners. David P. Findling, A. Norman Somers and Bernard Dunau, N.L.R.B., all of Washington, D.C., George J. Bott, General Counsel, Benjamin A. Theeman, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for respondent. George O. Bahrs, San Francisco, Cal., Arthur C. Rooney, Chicago, Ill., Eli E. Dorsey, Seattle, Wash., Robert P. Patterson