Labor Board v. Insurance Agents

Holding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"

Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8

Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board

Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.

H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board

In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Reed Prince MFG

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."

N.L.R.B. v. Herman Sausage Co

In NLRB v. Herman Sausage Co., 275 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1960), our circuit held that "generally speaking, the freedom to grant a unilateral wage increase "is limited to cases where there has been a bona fide but unsuccessful attempt to reach an agreement with the union, or where the union bears the guilt for having broken off relations.' NLRB v. Andrew Jergens Co., 9 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 130, 136, cert. denied, 338 U.S. 827, 70 S.Ct. 76, 94 L.Ed. 503.

Superior Engraving Co. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

In Superior Engraving Co. v. National LaborRel. Bd., 183 F.2d 783, 789 (7 Cir. 1950), certiorari denied 340 U.S. 930, 71 S.Ct. 490, 95 L.Ed. 671 (1951), the court recently declined to apply Sohn v. Waterson, supra, to an amendatory provision in the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(b), that "no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board."

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Natl. Shoes

Deciding that the employerengaged in an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8 where the record contained evidence of “[l]ong delays unaccounted for in the matter of correspondence and the preparation of documents, the postponement of meetings of the negotiators for weeks at a time, and the reopening of questions previously settled”

Coppus Engineering Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

In Coppus we adopted the requirement of actual evidence of domination of Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 221 F.2d 165 (7th Cir. 1955), and found none. Chief Judge Magruder, in a concurring opinion, recognized fully that the Shop Committee may have been "a feeble instrument", 240 F.2d at 573, but that it was "not the duty of the employer nor a function of the Board to `baby' along the employees in the direction of choosing an outside union."

National Labor Rel. B. v. Stanislaus Imp. H

Section 141 - Short title; Congressional declaration of purpose and policy

Stating Congress' declaration of purpose that "employers, employees, and labor organizations each recognize under law one another's legitimate rights in their relations with each other"