Tri-County Tube, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

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"
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"
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.
Labor Board v. Mexia Textile Mills
339 U.S. 563 (1950) Cited 132 times
Reasoning that Board's entitlement to enforcement prevents cases from becoming moot because it "adds to existing sanctions that of punishment for contempt"
N.L.R.B. v. P. Lorillard Co.
314 U.S. 512 (1942) Cited 76 times
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 71. Argued December 18, 19, 1941. Decided January 5, 1942. Whether an employer should be required to bargain with a union previously selected as employees' bargaining representative or, in view of lapse of time and changed conditions, a new election should be held is a question for decision by the Board and not by the Circuit Court of Appeals. P. 513. 117 F.2d 921, reversed. CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 557, to review a judgment entered
N.L.R.B. v. General Stencils, Inc.
438 F.2d 894 (2d Cir. 1971) Cited 38 times
In General Stencils we compared and contrasted cases involving coercive interrogation, threats to close plants, discriminatory discharges, loss of benefits and the like, id. at 903, with the facts in General Stencils, which principally involved unlawful interrogation of one employee about his statement to a Board agent, coupled with threats to a few employees to withdraw benefits of a relatively minor nature.
G.P.D., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
430 F.2d 963 (6th Cir. 1970) Cited 14 times
In G.P.D., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 430 F.2d 963 (6th Cir. 1970) this Court recognized that the actual number of union adherents present in the unit at the time enforcement of a bargaining order is sought is inconsequential.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lou De Young's Market Basket, Inc.
430 F.2d 912 (6th Cir. 1970) Cited 13 times
No. 18160. September 8, 1970. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Ronald Grenbrg, Attorneys, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief for petitioner. Varnum, Riddering, Wierengo Christenson, Eugene Alkema, Gary P. Skiner, Grand Rapids, Mich., on brief for respondent. Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and EDWARDS and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges. CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judge. This is a petition to review and
Local No. 152 v. N.L.R.B
343 F.2d 307 (D.C. Cir. 1965) Cited 13 times
In Local No. 152 there was evidence (1) that the union honestly but mistakenly believed it represented a majority of the employees in the unit when it sought recognition, and one week thereafter actually attained majority status, (2) the company responded that it was not interested in talking to the union, (3) the company did not in any manner dispute the union's claim of majority representation, (4) the company ignored the union's demand for recognition, and (5) the union petitioned the Board for an election.
Howard Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B
436 F.2d 581 (8th Cir. 1971) Cited 2 times
No. 20068. January 4, 1971. Rehearing Denied February 5, 1971. James W. Moore, Smith, Williams, Friday Bowen, Little Rock, Ark., for petitioner. Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Joseph C. Thackery, Atty., N.L.R.B., for respondent. Before MATTHES, Chief Judge, and GIBSON and LAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its bargaining order entered upon findings of unfair

Tri-County Tube, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

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"

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.

Reasoning that Board's entitlement to enforcement prevents cases from becoming moot because it "adds to existing sanctions that of punishment for contempt"

In G.P.D., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 430 F.2d 963 (6th Cir. 1970) this Court recognized that the actual number of union adherents present in the unit at the time enforcement of a bargaining order is sought is inconsequential.