§

Timber Products Co.

277 N.L.R.B. 769 (N.L.R.B. 1985)
Timber Products Co.

9 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. H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 514 (1941)   Cited 241 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.

  3. Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Rel. Board

    170 F.2d 247 (7th Cir. 1949)   Cited 156 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Accepting the Board's conclusion "that the term `wages' . . . must be construed to include emoluments of value, like pension and insurance benefits, which may accrue to employees out of their employment relationship"

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Donkin's Inn, Inc.

    532 F.2d 138 (9th Cir. 1976)   Cited 41 times

    No. 74-3252. March 4, 1976. Rehearing Denied April 28, 1976. Edmund Cooke, Atty. (argued), NLRB, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Robert S. Rose (argued), of Harris Aranda, Marina Del Rey, Cal., for respondent. Before CHAMBERS, TRASK and WALLACE, Circuit Judges. OPINION TRASK, Circuit Judge: This is an application for Enforcement of an Order of the NLRB, issued on October 9, 1974, against Donkin's Inn, Inc. (hereafter, "the Company") for certain violations of sections 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1) of the

  5. Industrial Un. of Mar. Ship. W. v. N.L.R.B

    320 F.2d 615 (3d Cir. 1963)   Cited 63 times   4 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 14052, 14102. Argued May 21, 1963. Decided July 30, 1963. M.H. Goldstein, Philadelphia, Pa. (Goldstein Barkan, Michael Brodie, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for petitioner, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO. John H. Morse, New York City (Frank Cummings, New York City, Cravath, Swaine Moore, New York City, on the brief), for Bethlehem Steel Co. (Shipbuilding Division). Nancy M. Sherman, Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli

  6. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    659 F.2d 87 (8th Cir. 1981)   Cited 26 times
    In Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 659 F.2d 87 (8th Cir. 1981) (Pepsi Cola), the union initially rejected the offer and three weeks passed between offer and acceptance. During the three-week interval, the employer met with the union for several bargaining sessions but did not expressly withdraw its offer.

  7. Presto Casting Co. v. N.L.R.B

    708 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that "general legal principles of contract formation . . . hold that counteroffers, rejections and a subsequent change of relative bargaining positions in favor of the offeror constitute withdrawal of the offer and that a purported acceptance thereafter is wholly ineffective"

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Mar-Len Cabinets, Inc.

    659 F.2d 995 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 13 times
    In NLRB v. Mar-Len Cabinets, Inc., 659 F.2d 995 (9th Cir. 1981), we held that looking to the substance of an agreement is permissible when it "supports an inference of intent to frustrate agreement where... the entire spectrum of proposals put forward by a party is so consistently and predictably unpalatable to the other party that the proposer should know agreement is impossible."

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second