§
Tube Craft, Inc.

18 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.

    389 U.S. 375 (1967)   Cited 234 times
    In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.

  2. Soule Glass and Glazing Co. v. N.L.R.B

    652 F.2d 1055 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 97 times
    Holding that the employer "must bargain with respect to the decision to remove work from bargaining unit employees, not merely its effects on the employees"

  3. Pioneer Inn Associates v. N.L.R.B

    578 F.2d 835 (9th Cir. 1978)   Cited 42 times
    Upholding "contract bar" rule that Board will not conduct decertification election during life of contract even if majority of employees withdraws support from union

  4. Retired Persons Pharmacy v. N.L.R.B

    519 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1975)   Cited 44 times
    Affirming an ALJ's decision not to permit an employer to call employees to testify about whether they supported the union as of the withdrawal date because the employer “would clearly have been putting pressure on them to answer favorably” and “[i]f such questioning were allowed, management could withdraw recognition without basis and successfully defend itself by showing a lack of union support which in fact resulted not from employee dissatisfaction but rather from the withdrawal of recognition and subsequent proceedings”

  5. Allied Industrial Workers, AFL-CIO Local Union No. 289 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    476 F.2d 868 (D.C. Cir. 1973)   Cited 48 times
    Noting that "naked information" regarding the filing of a decertification petition without information regarding the number of signatories is insufficient to create good faith doubt of union majority status, even with additional evidence present

  6. Terrell Machine Company v. N.L.R.B

    427 F.2d 1088 (4th Cir. 1970)   Cited 47 times

    No. 13371. Argued December 2, 1969. Decided January 20, 1970. William W. Sturges, Charlotte, N.C. (Weinstein, Waggoner, Sturges Odom, Charlotte, N.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Thomas E. Silfen, Atty., N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and John D. Burgoyne, Atty., N.L.R.B., on the brief), for respondent. Before SOBELOFF and WINTER, Circuit Judges, and HARVEY, District Judge. WINTER, Circuit Judge:

  7. Whisper Soft Mills, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    754 F.2d 1381 (9th Cir. 1984)   Cited 20 times

    Nos. 83-7717, 83-7813 and 83-7840. Argued and Submitted September 13, 1984. Decided October 31, 1984. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En banc March 11, 1985. Stefan M. Mason, Mason Mason, Los Angeles, Cal., Sanford N. Nathan, Neyhart, Anderson, Nussbaum, Reilly Freitas, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Susan Williams, Elliott Moore, NLRB, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition to Review a Decision of the United States National Labor Relations Board. Before MERRILL, ALARCON

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Gulfmont Hotel Company

    362 F.2d 588 (5th Cir. 1966)   Cited 43 times

    No. 22340. June 24, 1966. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Theodore J. Martineau, Atty., N.L.R.B., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. H.L. Deakins, Jr., Houston, Tex., Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates Jaworski, Houston, Tex., of counsel, for appellee. Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, RIVES, Circuit Judge, and CHOATE, District Judge. TUTTLE, Chief Judge: This petition by the

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Windham Community Memorial Hosp

    577 F.2d 805 (2d Cir. 1978)   Cited 26 times
    Approving Board presumption

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service

    584 F.2d 720 (5th Cir. 1978)   Cited 25 times
    In Randle-Eastern, our predecessor circuit considered the presumption that new employees support the Union in the same ratio as those they have replaced, and rejected its application where the employee "turnover" results from the replacement of strikers.