§
WCAR, Inc.

26 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. 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.”

  3. Walling v. A.H. Belo Corp.

    316 U.S. 624 (1942)   Cited 218 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "nothing in the [FLSA] bars an employer from contracting with his employees to pay them the same wages that they received previously"

  4. N.L.R.B. v. American Cable Systems, Inc.

    427 F.2d 446 (5th Cir. 1970)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board must consider current circumstances when issuing a bargaining order following Gissel.

  5. N.L.R.B. v. L.B. Foster Company

    418 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1969)   Cited 47 times
    In Foster, the Ninth Circuit answered: "Emphasis is given to the rapid turnover in the employer's personnel as a reason for not enforcing the order.

  6. 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.

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Drives, Incorporated

    440 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1971)   Cited 30 times
    In NLRB v. Drives, Inc., 440 F.2d 354, 364 (7 Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 912, 92 S.Ct. 229, 30 L.Ed.2d 185 (1971), the court upheld the Board's ruling that an employer had violated § 8(a)(1) when he distributed a survey shortly before a representation election requesting employees to make specific suggestions for improvements in working conditions and implying that the improvements would come only if the union were defeated.

  8. Triple "AAA" Company v. Wirtz

    378 F.2d 884 (10th Cir. 1967)   Cited 34 times
    Applying § 778.114 where § 7(f) did not apply because employees always worked at least forty hours per week

  9. Shoreline Enterprises of Am., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    262 F.2d 933 (5th Cir. 1959)   Cited 46 times
    In Shoreline Enterprises of America, Inc. v. NLRB, 262 F.2d 933 (5 Cir. 1959), the court recognized that a Board agent is present not only to make sure eligible voters vote but also to make sure that an employee who thinks he is eligible may cast a challenged ballot.

  10. Foremost Dairies, Inc. v. Wirtz

    381 F.2d 653 (5th Cir. 1967)   Cited 32 times

    No. 23530. July 21, 1967. Rehearing Denied September 20, 1967. John Bacheller, Jr., Fisher Phillips, Atlanta, Ga., for appellants. Bessie Margolin, Assoc. Sol., Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., Charles Donahue, Sol. of Labor, Robert E. Nagle, William Fauver, Caruthers G. Berger, Attys., Dept. of Labor, Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Atty., for appellee. Before COLEMAN and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges, and CARSWELL, District Judge. AINSWORTH, Circuit Judge: We are called upon here to interpret the meaning

  11. Section 213 - Exemptions

    29 U.S.C. § 213   Cited 4,701 times   257 Legal Analyses
    Exempting from provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act "any employee employed on a casual basis in domestic service employment to provide companionship services for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves (as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Secretary)"