Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.

Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"

I.A. of M. v. Labor Board

In International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L. Ed. 50, there had been a long history of management favoritism to the established and hostility to the aspiring union; and in Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. 702, 703, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818, 88 L.Ed. 1020, the employer had "conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the union won the election."

May Stores Co. v. Labor Board

Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"

H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board

In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.

Republic Steel Corp. v. Labor Board

In Republic Steel, supra, the Court refused to enforce an order requiring the employer to pay the full amount of back pay to an employee who had been paid to work for the Work Projects Administration in the meantime.

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

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.

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Edward G. Budd Mfg. Co.

In NLRB v. Budd Mfg. Co., 169 F.2d 571, 577 (6th Cir. 1945), cert. denied, 335 U.S. 905, 69 S.Ct. 411, 93 L.Ed. 441 (1949), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals specifically rejected the notion that the protection afforded by the National Labor Relations Act is a constitutional right.

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

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

National Labor Relations Bd. v. A.S. Abell Co.

Home Beneficial Life Ins. v. N.L.R.B

In Home Beneficial Life Ins. Co., the employee insurance agents refused to report to their offices daily as they were required to do.