§
Wolfie's

22 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Brown

    380 U.S. 278 (1965)   Cited 473 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Approving finding of § 8 violation when "employers' conduct is demonstrably so destructive of employee rights and so devoid of significant service to any legitimate business end that it cannot be tolerated consistently with the Act"

  2. Labor Board v. Fruit Packers

    377 U.S. 58 (1964)   Cited 236 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NLRA section 8(b)(B) does not prohibit "peaceful picketing . . . limited . . . to persuading Safeway customers not to buy Washington State apples when they traded in Safeway stores"

  3. Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.

    370 U.S. 9 (1962)   Cited 206 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

  4. Labor Board v. Electrical Workers

    346 U.S. 464 (1953)   Cited 125 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute

  5. Local 833, Uaw-Afl-Cio, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    300 F.2d 699 (D.C. Cir. 1962)   Cited 40 times

    Nos. 15961, 16031, 16182. Argued September 11, 1961. Decided January 26, 1962. Certiorari Denied June 4, 1962. See 82 S.Ct. 1258. Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D.C., and Mr. Louis H. Pollak, New Haven, Conn., of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. John Silard, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for Local 833, UAW-AFL-CIO, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, petitioner

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates Co.

    130 F.2d 503 (2d Cir. 1942)   Cited 69 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates Co., 130 F.2d 503 (2d Cir. 1942), Judge Learned Hand stated his view of the type of activity protected by section 7.

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thayer Co.

    213 F.2d 748 (1st Cir. 1954)   Cited 40 times
    In Thayer, the court first announced that if the activity causing dismissal was protected under § 7 of the Act then denial of reinstatement was unlawful. If the activity was unprotected under § 7, however, the legality of the denial was to be determined according to a balancing test.

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Montgomery Ward

    157 F.2d 486 (8th Cir. 1946)   Cited 50 times
    In NLRB v. Montgomery Ward Co., 157 F.2d 486 (8th Cir. 1946), the employees remained on their job but refused to handle any clerical work originating from another of the employer's plants which was on strike.

  9. Republic Steel Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    107 F.2d 472 (3d Cir. 1939)   Cited 59 times
    In Republic Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 107 F.2d 472 (3d Cir. 1939), modified on other grounds, 311 U.S. 7, 61 S.Ct. 77, 85 L.Ed. 6 (1940), this court stated that Congress must have contemplated that the protection of the National Labor Relations Act would extend to employees who commit minor acts of misconduct while exercising their right to strike.

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Illinois Tool Works

    153 F.2d 811 (7th Cir. 1946)   Cited 47 times
    Noting that the test for violations of sec. 8, now codified as sec. 8, of the NLRA is whether "the employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act," and that actual or successful coercion need not be shown in order for the Board to find a violation