United Mineral & Chemical Corp.

21 Cited authorities

Radio Officers v. Labor Board
347 U.S. 17 (1954) Cited 470 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
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
Labor Board v. Burnup Sims
379 U.S. 21 (1964) Cited 106 times 21 Legal Analyses
Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"
Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board
185 F.2d 732 (D.C. Cir. 1950) Cited 162 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Joy Silk the Court held that when an employer could have no doubt as to the majority status or when an employer refuses recognition of a union "due to a desire to gain time and to take action to dissipate the union's majority, the refusal is no longer justifiable and constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain set forth in section 8(a)(5) of the Act".
Labor Board v. Stowe Spinning Co.
336 U.S. 226 (1949) Cited 46 times
In NLRB v. Stowe Spinning Co., 336 U.S. 226, 232-33, 69 S.Ct. 541, 544, 93 L.Ed. 638 (1949), the Court declined to enforce an order requiring an employer to make its meeting hall available to a union; the Board might legitimately bar discrimination against unions, the Court said, but could not require the employer to prefer unions over other potential users.
Hendrix Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B
321 F.2d 100 (5th Cir. 1963) Cited 91 times
Permitting the Board to consider the employer's clear expression of opposition to the union as background in order to determine motivation for management's conduct
Colson Corporation v. N.L.R.B
347 F.2d 128 (8th Cir. 1965) Cited 35 times
Finding that a repudiation three weeks after unlawful conduct was inadequate
Edward Fields, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
325 F.2d 754 (2d Cir. 1963) Cited 32 times
In Edward Fields, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 325 F.2d 754 (2d Cir. 1963), a vice-president of the company suggested that the employees prepare a petition calling for the return of previously signed union authorization cards and, later, prepared such a petition at the request of one of his employees.
Welch Scientific Company v. N.L.R.B
340 F.2d 199 (2d Cir. 1965) Cited 24 times
In Welch Scientific Co. v. NLRB, 340 F.2d 199 (2 Cir. 1965), neither the Trial Examiner's report nor the Board's decision referred to the three-fold criteria, and the Board's brief in this court sought to justify the order as to interrogation only on the basis of lack of any proper purpose.

United Mineral & Chemical Corp.

21 Cited authorities

Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

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

Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

Permitting the Board to consider the employer's clear expression of opposition to the union as background in order to determine motivation for management's conduct

Finding that a repudiation three weeks after unlawful conduct was inadequate

In Edward Fields, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 325 F.2d 754 (2d Cir. 1963), a vice-president of the company suggested that the employees prepare a petition calling for the return of previously signed union authorization cards and, later, prepared such a petition at the request of one of his employees.

In Welch Scientific Co. v. NLRB, 340 F.2d 199 (2 Cir. 1965), neither the Trial Examiner's report nor the Board's decision referred to the three-fold criteria, and the Board's brief in this court sought to justify the order as to interrogation only on the basis of lack of any proper purpose.