Standard Oil Co. of Cailfornia

5 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. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board

    324 U.S. 793 (1945)   Cited 494 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
  3. Fabri-Tek, Incorporated v. N.L.R.B

    352 F.2d 577 (8th Cir. 1965)   Cited 17 times
    Upholding employer's objection to employees wearing IBEW vari-vue buttons when employer did not ban all buttons
  4. N.L.R.B. v. Harrah's Club

    337 F.2d 177 (9th Cir. 1964)   Cited 17 times
    In NLRB v. Harrah's Club, 337 F.2d 177 (9th Cir. 1964) (Harrah's Club), we reviewed a National Labor Relations Board (Board) order that concluded that section 7 of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), granted a casino's public contact uniformed employees a right to wear union buttons or pins, even though the wearing of the union buttons was not part of any concerted campaign to organize the employees, promote collective bargaining, or gain better working conditions.
  5. N.L.R.B. v. Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc.

    318 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1963)   Cited 11 times

    No. 20081. June 7, 1963. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Hans J. Lehmann, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. L. Robert Frank, Tampa, Fla., for respondent. Before RIVES, LEWIS, and BELL, Circuit Judges. Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. GRIFFIN B. BELL, Circuit Judge. This case presents a novel question: May an employer with no discriminatory purpose prohibit the wearing of pins indicating union membership or status