§

Watkins Furniture Co.

160 N.L.R.B. 188 (N.L.R.B. 1966)
Watkins Furniture Co.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Parts Co.

    375 U.S. 405 (1964)   Cited 213 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

  2. N.L.R.B. v. Cumberland Shoe Corporation

    351 F.2d 917 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 49 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Cumberland we emphasized that "In no instance did any employee testify that he was told that the election was the only purpose of the card."

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Elias Brothers Big Boy, Inc.

    327 F.2d 421 (6th Cir. 1964)   Cited 38 times
    Reversing credibility finding where examiner "credited the testimony of a highly prejudiced and interested witness and discredited the testimony of all witnesses to the contrary"

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Solo Cup Company

    237 F.2d 521 (8th Cir. 1956)   Cited 40 times

    No. 15524. October 18, 1956. Rehearing Denied November 16, 1956. Samuel M. Singer, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were with him on the brief), for petitioner. John J. Hasburgh, Kansas City, Mo. (Carl E. Enggas and Watson S. Marshall Enggas, Kansas City, Mo., were with him on the brief), for respondent. Before WOODROUGH

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Delight Bakery, Inc.

    353 F.2d 344 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 25 times

    No. 16091. December 3, 1965. Elliott Moore, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Allen M. Hutter, Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief, for petitioner. Jack R. Clary, Grand Rapids, Mich., Warner, Norcross Judd, by Thomas McNamara, Grand Rapids, Mich., on brief, for respondent. Before EDWARDS and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge. EDWARDS, Circuit

  6. Leeds Northrup Company v. N.L.R.B

    357 F.2d 527 (3d Cir. 1966)   Cited 22 times
    In Leeds Northrup Co. v. NLRB, 357 F.2d 527 (3d Cir. 1966), this court held that "once a complaint has issued, the charging party is entitled to an evidentiary hearing upon its objections to the proposed settlement agreement, be it formal or informal."

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Stow Manufacturing Co.

    217 F.2d 900 (2d Cir. 1954)   Cited 31 times

    No. 74, Docket 23104. Argued October 6, 1954. Decided December 7, 1954. Fannie M. Boyls, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Jean Engstrom, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, for petitioner. George C. Coughlin, Harrison, Coughlin, Dermody Ingalls, Binghamton, N.Y., for respondent. Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and L. HAND and FRANK, Circuit Judges. L. HAND,

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Des Moines Foods, Inc.

    296 F.2d 285 (8th Cir. 1961)   Cited 20 times

    No. 16694. November 29, 1961. Leo N. McGuire, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. made argument for petitioner. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Samuel M. Singer, Atty., and Leo N. McGuire, Atty., NLRB, Washington, D.C. were on the brief. Hobart E. Newton, Stuart, Iowa, made argument for respondent, and was on the brief. Before SANBORN, MATTHES and RIDGE, Circuit Judges. SANBORN

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pecheur Lozenge Co.

    209 F.2d 393 (2d Cir. 1953)   Cited 27 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Pecheur Lozenge Co., 2 Cir., 209 F.2d 393, 403, 404, it was held an unfair labor practice to insist that a strike be called off as a condition of bargaining.

  10. Local No. 152 v. N.L.R.B

    343 F.2d 307 (D.C. Cir. 1965)   Cited 13 times
    In Local No. 152 there was evidence (1) that the union honestly but mistakenly believed it represented a majority of the employees in the unit when it sought recognition, and one week thereafter actually attained majority status, (2) the company responded that it was not interested in talking to the union, (3) the company did not in any manner dispute the union's claim of majority representation, (4) the company ignored the union's demand for recognition, and (5) the union petitioned the Board for an election.