Wintex Knitting Mills, Inc.

17 Cited authorities

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,674 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.
388 U.S. 26 (1967) Cited 322 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
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.”
N.L.R.B. v. Gotham Industries, Inc.
406 F.2d 1306 (1st Cir. 1969) Cited 32 times 1 Legal Analyses
In NLRB v. Gotham Indus., Inc., 406 F.2d 1306, 1309 (1st Cir. 1969), we pointed out that there were two ingredients to a § 8(a)(1) violation case based upon an employer's granting of benefits to his employees.
N.L.R.B. v. Billen Shoe Co.
397 F.2d 801 (1st Cir. 1968) Cited 30 times
No. 7062. Heard May 6, 1968. Decided July 2, 1968. Laurence J. Hoffman, Washington, D.C., Atty., with whom Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Gary Green, Washington, D.C., Atty., were on brief, for petitioner. Irving Isaacson, Lewiston, Me., for respondent. Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges. ALDRICH, Chief Judge. This is a petition for enforcement of a Labor Board order. Respondent took
Indiana Metal Products v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.
202 F.2d 613 (7th Cir. 1953) Cited 48 times
No. 10717. March 10, 1953. Edward J. Fahy and Shultz Fahy, Rockford, Ill., for petitioner. David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Atty. National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel and Ruth V. Reel, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before DUFFY, FINNEGAN and LINDLEY, Circuit Judges. DUFFY, Circuit Judge. This is a petition by the Indiana Metal Products Corporation
Martel Mills Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
114 F.2d 624 (4th Cir. 1940) Cited 56 times
In Martel Mills Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 114 F.2d 624, the rules by which we are to be guided in making this determination have been clearly stated by Judge Dobie. As he points out the difficulty is that they are very much simpler to state than to apply.
Jervis Corporation, Bolivar Div. v. N.L.R.B
387 F.2d 107 (6th Cir. 1967) Cited 14 times
No. 17340. December 13, 1967. Clarence Clifton, and W. Kerby Bowling, Memphis, Tenn., for petitioner, Richard A. Brackhaln, Newell N. Fowler, Memphis, Tenn., on brief. Warren M. Davison, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Linda Sher, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Before WEICK, Chief Judge, EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge. WEICK
Cupples Co. Manufacturers v. N.L.R.B
106 F.2d 100 (8th Cir. 1939) Cited 48 times
In Cupples Co. Manufacturers v. National Labor Relations Board, 8 Cir., 106 F.2d 100, 113, we made the suggestion that if a trial examiner would, "within reasonable limits, permit each of the parties to the proceeding before him to prove his own case, in his own way, by his own counsel," charges of lack of due process for failure to accord a full and fair hearing could readily be avoided.
Monroe v. N.L.R.B
460 F.2d 121 (4th Cir. 1972) Cited 4 times
No. 71-1562. Argued January 7, 1972. Decided May 16, 1972. M. J. Diederich, Torrance, Cal., for petitioner. Peter G. Nash, General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Leonard M. Wagman and Harold J. Engel, Attorneys, N.L.R.B. for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before BRYAN and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges, and YOUNG, District Judge. JOSEPH H. YOUNG, District Judge. This case comes before us upon a petition to review and set aside an order of

Wintex Knitting Mills, Inc.

17 Cited authorities

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

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.”

In NLRB v. Gotham Indus., Inc., 406 F.2d 1306, 1309 (1st Cir. 1969), we pointed out that there were two ingredients to a § 8(a)(1) violation case based upon an employer's granting of benefits to his employees.

In Martel Mills Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 114 F.2d 624, the rules by which we are to be guided in making this determination have been clearly stated by Judge Dobie. As he points out the difficulty is that they are very much simpler to state than to apply.