Stern Produce Company, Inc.

40 Cited authorities

Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
461 U.S. 731 (1983) Cited 974 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the NLRB could not bar an employer from pursuing a well-grounded lawsuit for damages under state law
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,033 times 65 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
Sure-Tan, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
467 U.S. 883 (1984) Cited 415 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that NLRB could order reinstatement with back pay as a remedy for constructive discharge
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 708 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
American Ship Bldg. v. Labor Board
380 U.S. 300 (1965) Cited 350 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful
Zimomra v. Alamo Rent-A-Car
522 U.S. 948 (1997) Cited 104 times
Holding that active supervision unnecessary where challenged ordinance left defendants, car rental companies at Denver International Airport, virtually no discretionary authority in setting and collecting usage fees from their customers because usage fee determined by detailed formula
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.”
Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
321 U.S. 678 (1944) Cited 269 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8
Steam Press Holdings v. Hawaii Teamsters
302 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 36 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiff estopped from alleging claim for breach of contract, because plaintiff, prior to filing suit, had repudiated contract
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.
Section 160 - Prevention of unfair labor practices
29 U.S.C. § 160 Cited 7,046 times 23 Legal Analyses
Finding that the procedures for unfair labor practice cases mandated by R.C. 4117.12 and 4117.13 are substantively identical to those established in NLRA to govern unfair labor practice cases before NLRB

Stern Produce Company, Inc.

40 Cited authorities

Holding that the NLRB could not bar an employer from pursuing a well-grounded lawsuit for damages under state law

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

Holding that NLRB could order reinstatement with back pay as a remedy for constructive discharge

Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful

Holding that active supervision unnecessary where challenged ordinance left defendants, car rental companies at Denver International Airport, virtually no discretionary authority in setting and collecting usage fees from their customers because usage fee determined by detailed formula

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.”

Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8

Holding plaintiff estopped from alleging claim for breach of contract, because plaintiff, prior to filing suit, had repudiated contract

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.

Finding that the procedures for unfair labor practice cases mandated by R.C. 4117.12 and 4117.13 are substantively identical to those established in NLRA to govern unfair labor practice cases before NLRB