§
The Singer Co.

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. 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

  3. May Stores Co. v. Labor Board

    326 U.S. 376 (1945)   Cited 257 times
    Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"

  4. Labor Board v. Virginia Power Co.

    314 U.S. 469 (1941)   Cited 169 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Virginia Electric Power Co., 314 U.S. 469, 477, 62 S.Ct. 344, 348, 86 L.Ed. 348 (1941), the Supreme court concluded that the Wagner Act could not be interpreted to prohibit an employer from exercising his First Amendment right to express his views to employees on the merits of unionization, provided the expression was neither coercive nor part of a coercive course of conduct.

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. River Togs, Inc.

    382 F.2d 198 (2d Cir. 1967)   Cited 48 times
    In NLRB v. River Togs, Inc. (2d Cir. July 27, 1967) 382 F.2d 198, however, we recognized some of the limitations of the authorization card procedure, calling for scrutiny of the manner of execution of the cards.

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Sinclair Company

    397 F.2d 157 (1st Cir. 1968)   Cited 28 times
    In NLRB v. Sinclair Co., 397 F.2d 157, 161 (1st Cir. 1968), one of the three consolidated cases disposed of in the Gissel opinion, the Court of Appeals said, "Whether an employer has used language that is coercive in its effect is a question essentially for the specialized experience of the Board."

  7. Serv-Air, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    395 F.2d 557 (10th Cir. 1968)   Cited 28 times
    Applying special circumstances approach to rule banning the wearing of multiple badges

  8. Wausau Steel Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    377 F.2d 369 (7th Cir. 1967)   Cited 21 times

    No. 15840. April 11, 1967. Richard P. Tinkham, of Smith, Puchner, Tinkham Smith, Wausau, Wis., for petitioner. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Glen M. Bendixsen, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Melvin H. Reifin, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, for respondent. Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and SCHNACKENBERG and KILEY, Circuit Judges. HASTINGS, Chief Judge. The Wausau Steel Corporation

  9. Jervis Corporation, Bolivar Div. v. N.L.R.B

    387 F.2d 107 (6th Cir. 1967)   Cited 14 times

    No. 17340. December 13, 1967. Clarence Clifton, and W. Kerby Bowling, Memphis, Tenn., for petitioner, Richard A. Brackhaln, Newell N. Fowler, Memphis, Tenn., on brief. Warren M. Davison, 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, Linda Sher, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Before WEICK, Chief Judge, EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge. WEICK

  10. Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    120 F.2d 641 (D.C. Cir. 1941)   Cited 33 times

    Nos. 7503, 7538. Argued February 17, 1941. Decided May 12, 1941. On Petition to Review and Set Aside an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Petition by the Bethlehem Steel Company and another to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board, wherein the Plan of Employees' Representation at the Steelton, Pa., Plant of the Bethlehem Steel Company and another intervened in support of the petition and the Steel Workers Organizing Committee intervened in support of the order

  11. Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy

    29 U.S.C. § 151   Cited 5,091 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"