Without Reservation

14 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
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.
Delco-Remy Div., Gen. Motors Corp v. N.L.R.B
596 F.2d 1295 (5th Cir. 1979) Cited 25 times
In Delco-Remy we denied enforcement of an order ostensibly based on coercive interrogation, soliciting aid against the union, and threatening discharge.
Wyman-Gordon Co. v. N.L.R.B
654 F.2d 134 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 20 times
Finding statement that "bargaining would 'begin at zero' and work up" constituted a violation of § 8
Brockway Motor Trucks, Etc. v. N.L.R.B
582 F.2d 720 (3d Cir. 1978) Cited 23 times
Holding that closing down of an employer's plant falls within statutory phrase "terms and conditions of employment"
Bandag, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
583 F.2d 765 (5th Cir. 1978) Cited 21 times
Enforcing Gissel Order where employer interrogated employees, threatened to curtail plant expansion or close the plant, terminated an employee who was leading the unionization efforts, and promised a wage increase if the union lost
Industrial, Technical & Professional Employees Division, National Maritime Union v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
683 F.2d 305 (9th Cir. 1982) Cited 14 times
Finding an issue fully and fairly litigated in part because there was no objection to the introduction of the crucial evidence
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."
Chemvet Laboratories, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
497 F.2d 445 (8th Cir. 1974) Cited 21 times
Holding threats of plant closure are "the most potent" instruments of employer interference

Without Reservation

14 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

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 Delco-Remy we denied enforcement of an order ostensibly based on coercive interrogation, soliciting aid against the union, and threatening discharge.

Finding statement that "bargaining would 'begin at zero' and work up" constituted a violation of § 8

Holding that closing down of an employer's plant falls within statutory phrase "terms and conditions of employment"

Enforcing Gissel Order where employer interrogated employees, threatened to curtail plant expansion or close the plant, terminated an employee who was leading the unionization efforts, and promised a wage increase if the union lost

Finding an issue fully and fairly litigated in part because there was no objection to the introduction of the crucial evidence

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."

Holding threats of plant closure are "the most potent" instruments of employer interference