World Generator Co.

24 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"
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.”
Siegel Co. v. N. L. R. B
398 U.S. 959 (1970) Cited 134 times
No. 1525. June 15, 1970. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 417 F. 2d 1206.
Labor Board v. Virginia Power Co.
314 U.S. 469 (1941) Cited 169 times 2 Legal Analyses
In NLRB v. Virginia Electric Power Co., 314 U.S. 469, 477, 62 S.Ct. 344, 348, 86 L.Ed. 348 (1941), the Supreme court concluded that the Wagner Act could not be interpreted to prohibit an employer from exercising his First Amendment right to express his views to employees on the merits of unionization, provided the expression was neither coercive nor part of a coercive course of conduct.
Bourne v. N.L.R.B
332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964) Cited 93 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.
N.L.R.B. v. Eagle Material Handling, Inc.
558 F.2d 160 (3d Cir. 1977) Cited 36 times
In Eagle Material, we held that a company violated the NLRA when it terminated an unpopular supervisor shortly before the union's representation election.
Ann Lee Sportswear, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
543 F.2d 739 (10th Cir. 1976) Cited 17 times
In Ann Lee Sportswear, Inc. v. NLRB, supra, 543 F.2d at 742, this court said, "that it should only interfere with the Board's findings in the rare instance when the standard [regarding substantial evidence] appears to have been misapprehended or grossly misapplied."
Wirtz v. B.A.C. Steel Products, Inc.
312 F.2d 14 (4th Cir. 1962) Cited 29 times
In B.A.C., the Secretary supplied the exact information here requested by defendant, and if plaintiff will just do what Secretary Wirtz did voluntarily in B.A.C., defendant will have the information it wants.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Nabors
196 F.2d 272 (5th Cir. 1952) Cited 37 times
No. 13526. April 29, 1952. Rehearing Denied June 6, 1952. Owsley Vose, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and David P. Findling, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, all of Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Martin Dies, Sr., Lufkin, Tex., for respondent. Before HOLMES, BORAH, and STRUM, Circuit Judges. STRUM, Circuit Judge. `This is a petition to enforce, and a cross petition to set aside, an order of the National Labor Relations Board, issued April 19, 1950, pursuant to Sec. 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Texaco, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
436 F.2d 520 (7th Cir. 1971) Cited 14 times
No. 17993. January 4, 1971. Rehearing Denied February 18, 1971. Edwin J. Buckley, Chicago, Ill., J.M. Mitchell, New York City, Owen Fair-weather, R. Theodore Clark, Jr., Andrew M. Kramer, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner; Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather Geraldson, Chicago, Ill., of counsel. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Frank H. Itkin, Baruch A. Fellner, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before SWYGERT
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,091 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

World Generator Co.

24 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.”

In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

In Eagle Material, we held that a company violated the NLRA when it terminated an unpopular supervisor shortly before the union's representation election.

In Ann Lee Sportswear, Inc. v. NLRB, supra, 543 F.2d at 742, this court said, "that it should only interfere with the Board's findings in the rare instance when the standard [regarding substantial evidence] appears to have been misapprehended or grossly misapplied."

In B.A.C., the Secretary supplied the exact information here requested by defendant, and if plaintiff will just do what Secretary Wirtz did voluntarily in B.A.C., defendant will have the information it wants.

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"