356 U.S. 342 (1958) Cited 296 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."
Finding "direct participation" theory of liability "limited to situations in which the parent corporation's control over the particular transactions is exercised in disregard of the separate corporate identity of the subsidiary"
In Reed Prince, supra, this court affirmed the Board's finding of refusal to bargain in good faith only "[a]fter an attentive review of the entire record of the bargaining negotiations."
In Facet Enterprises, we reasoned "[t]he policies underlying [§ 160(e)], i.e., notice, efficiency and providing the Board with the first opportunity to consider a claim, would have been undermined had the Supreme Court allowed judicial review" in Woelke & Romero and Garment Workers' Union.