ยง

The Ruberoid Co.

167 N.L.R.B. 987 (N.L.R.B. 1967)
The Ruberoid Co.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 710 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

  2. Labor Board v. Brown

    380 U.S. 278 (1965)   Cited 473 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Approving finding of ยง 8 violation when "employers' conduct is demonstrably so destructive of employee rights and so devoid of significant service to any legitimate business end that it cannot be tolerated consistently with the Act"

  3. American Ship Bldg. v. Labor Board

    380 U.S. 300 (1965)   Cited 350 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful

  4. 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"

  5. Textile Workers v. Darlington Co.

    380 U.S. 263 (1965)   Cited 168 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer has the absolute right, at least as far as the NLRA is concerned, to terminate his entire business for any reason

  6. Labor Board v. Truck Drivers Union

    353 U.S. 87 (1957)   Cited 197 times
    Discussing congressional debate over the Taft-Hartley amendments of 1947

  7. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    270 F.2d 40 (3d Cir. 1959)   Cited 11 times
    In Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. v. NLRB, 270 F.2d 40, 43 (3d Cir. 1959), the court, in sustaining the Board's finding that a shut-down by the employer was not motivated by a fear that a sudden strike would endanger plant and personnel, stated that "to apply hindsight in the light of what later occurred would not be a true assessment of the company's motives.