Wm. T. Burnett And Co., Inc.

12 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,036 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
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.”
Tripoli Co., Inc. v. Wella Corp.
400 U.S. 831 (1970) Cited 137 times
Declining to review under Hobbs Act district court's exercise of jurisdiction of claim against Federal Communications Commission because plaintiff-appellant had also filed timely petitions for review with court of appeals
Soule Glass and Glazing Co. v. N.L.R.B
652 F.2d 1055 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 97 times
Holding that the employer "must bargain with respect to the decision to remove work from bargaining unit employees, not merely its effects on the employees"
Laidlaw Corporation v. N.L.R.B
414 F.2d 99 (7th Cir. 1969) Cited 81 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that while an employer is not obligated to discharge permanent replacements to make room for returning economic strikers, the employer must place the former strikers on a preferential recall list
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."
J.J. Newberry Co. v. N.L.R.B
645 F.2d 148 (2d Cir. 1981) Cited 23 times
In J.J. Newberry, 645 F.2d 148, the court found an 8(a)(1) violation where the employer announced a wage increase prior to an election.
N.L.R.B. v. Styletek, Div. of Pandel-Bradford
520 F.2d 275 (1st Cir. 1975) Cited 29 times
No. 75-1017. Argued June 3, 1975. Decided August 6, 1975. Margery E. Lieber, Atty., with whom Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, and John H. Ferguson, Atty., were on brief, for petitioner. George H. Foley, Boston, Mass., with whom Hale Dorr, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, McENTEE
J.C. Penney Co. v. N.L.R.B
384 F.2d 479 (10th Cir. 1967) Cited 30 times
No. 8874. August 29, 1967. William C. McClearn, Denver, Colo. (Robert L. Morris, Morris B. Hecox, Denver, Colo., Eugene F. Rowan and Martin Zeiger, New York City, with him on brief), for petitioner. Peter M. Giesey, Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli, Marcel Mallet-Prevost and Nancy M. Sherman, Washington, D.C., with him on brief), for respondent. Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges. MURRAH, Chief Judge. This matter arises from two separate unfair
N.L.R.B. v. Apple Tree Chevrolet, Inc.
671 F.2d 838 (4th Cir. 1982) Cited 12 times
Declining to enforce a Gissel order in light of a 75% employee turnover

Wm. T. Burnett And Co., Inc.

12 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 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.”

Declining to review under Hobbs Act district court's exercise of jurisdiction of claim against Federal Communications Commission because plaintiff-appellant had also filed timely petitions for review with court of appeals

Holding that the employer "must bargain with respect to the decision to remove work from bargaining unit employees, not merely its effects on the employees"

Holding that while an employer is not obligated to discharge permanent replacements to make room for returning economic strikers, the employer must place the former strikers on a preferential recall list

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."

In J.J. Newberry, 645 F.2d 148, the court found an 8(a)(1) violation where the employer announced a wage increase prior to an election.

Declining to enforce a Gissel order in light of a 75% employee turnover