W & W Tool & Die Manufacturing Co.

15 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"
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
Linden Lumber Division, Summer & Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
419 U.S. 301 (1974) Cited 55 times 12 Legal Analyses
Recognizing "that while the election process has acknowledged superiority in ascertaining whether a union has majority support, [signed employee authorization] cards may adequately reflect employee sentiment"
Surprenant Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B
341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965) Cited 60 times
In Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965) this Court approved as non-threatening, language of the employer which was much stronger than that used in the present case.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. River Togs, Inc.
382 F.2d 198 (2d Cir. 1967) Cited 48 times
In NLRB v. River Togs, Inc. (2d Cir. July 27, 1967) 382 F.2d 198, however, we recognized some of the limitations of the authorization card procedure, calling for scrutiny of the manner of execution of the cards.
N.L.R.B. v. Flomatic Corporation
347 F.2d 74 (2d Cir. 1965) Cited 50 times
In NLRB v. Flomatic Corp., 347 F.2d 74, 76-77 (2 Cir. 1965), this court held that various promises of benefits and an invitation to deal directly with the company violated § 8(a)(1).
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ayer Lar Sanitarium
436 F.2d 45 (9th Cir. 1970) Cited 39 times
In NLRB v. Ayer Lar Sanitarium, supra, 436 F.2d at 50, we said that the "test is whether the business reason or the... union activity is the moving cause behind the discharge.
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.
N.L.R.B. v. Lenkurt Electric Company
438 F.2d 1102 (9th Cir. 1971) Cited 26 times
In Lenkurt, the absence of antiunion sentiment led this court to conclude that, in the context of a previously neutral stance by a company toward a union, vigorous campaigning in the form of "predictions of possible disadvantages which might arise from economic necessity or because of union demands or union policies," were not communications of a prohibited nature.
N.L.R.B. v. Sinclair Company
397 F.2d 157 (1st Cir. 1968) Cited 28 times
In NLRB v. Sinclair Co., 397 F.2d 157, 161 (1st Cir. 1968), one of the three consolidated cases disposed of in the Gissel opinion, the Court of Appeals said, "Whether an employer has used language that is coercive in its effect is a question essentially for the specialized experience of the Board."

W & W Tool & Die Manufacturing Co.

15 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 has the absolute right, at least as far as the NLRA is concerned, to terminate his entire business for any reason

Recognizing "that while the election process has acknowledged superiority in ascertaining whether a union has majority support, [signed employee authorization] cards may adequately reflect employee sentiment"

In Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965) this Court approved as non-threatening, language of the employer which was much stronger than that used in the present case.

In NLRB v. River Togs, Inc. (2d Cir. July 27, 1967) 382 F.2d 198, however, we recognized some of the limitations of the authorization card procedure, calling for scrutiny of the manner of execution of the cards.

In NLRB v. Flomatic Corp., 347 F.2d 74, 76-77 (2 Cir. 1965), this court held that various promises of benefits and an invitation to deal directly with the company violated § 8(a)(1).

In NLRB v. Ayer Lar Sanitarium, supra, 436 F.2d at 50, we said that the "test is whether the business reason or the... union activity is the moving cause behind the discharge.

In NLRB v. Sinclair Co., 397 F.2d 157, 161 (1st Cir. 1968), one of the three consolidated cases disposed of in the Gissel opinion, the Court of Appeals said, "Whether an employer has used language that is coercive in its effect is a question essentially for the specialized experience of the Board."