§

Valley Feed and Supply Co., Inc.

135 N.L.R.B. 778 (N.L.R.B. 1962)
Valley Feed and Supply Co., Inc.

4 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co.

    351 U.S. 105 (1956)   Cited 294 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot

  2. Bonwit Teller, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    197 F.2d 640 (2d Cir. 1952)   Cited 29 times
    In Bonwit Teller, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 197 F.2d 640, 645, it appeared that the Board, apparently because of considerations mentioned in the May case, supra, having authorized a practice of allowing retail department stores the privilege of prohibiting all solicitation within the selling areas of the stores during both working and non-working hours, Bonwit Teller, a retail department store, availed itself of that privilege.

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Empire Mfg. Corp.

    260 F.2d 528 (4th Cir. 1958)   Cited 8 times

    No. 7726. Argued October 16, 1958. Decided October 22, 1958. Fred S. Landess, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Arnold Ordman, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner. J.W. Alexander, Jr., Charlotte, N.C., and C.B. Winberry, Statesville, N.C. (Adams, Dearman Winberry, Statesville, N.C., and Blakeney Alexander, Charlotte

  4. John S. Barnes Corp. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    190 F.2d 127 (7th Cir. 1951)   Cited 10 times
    In John S. Barnes Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 7 Cir., 190 F.2d 127, at page 130, where the company had no anti-union background or pattern of conduct hostile to unionism, this court said: "However, the courts have not considered isolated remarks or questions, which did not in themselves contain threats or promises, and where there was no pattern or background of union hostility, as coercion of the employees and as a violation of § 8(a)(1)."