Fed-Mart

15 Cited authorities

John Wiley Sons v. Livingston
376 U.S. 543 (1964) Cited 1,771 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement survived a corporate merger and bound the resulting corporation
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 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"
Board v. Hearst Publications
322 U.S. 111 (1944) Cited 791 times 8 Legal Analyses
Determining whether newsboys were independent contractors or employees under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA")
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board
313 U.S. 177 (1941) Cited 871 times
Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”
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.”
Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board
321 U.S. 702 (1944) Cited 252 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.
Jas. H. Matthews Co. v. N.L.R.B
354 F.2d 432 (8th Cir. 1966) Cited 54 times
In James H. Matthews Co., supra, the employee in question signed an authorization card. Later the union received a letter, postmarked 11 days after the effective date for determining majority status of the union, requesting return of the employee's authorization card. Allegedly, the letter was neither written, dated, nor addressed by the employee and was originally left with an undisclosed person.
Colson Corporation v. N.L.R.B
347 F.2d 128 (8th Cir. 1965) Cited 35 times
Finding that a repudiation three weeks after unlawful conduct was inadequate
United Steelworkers of Amer. v. Reliance Univ
335 F.2d 891 (3d Cir. 1964) Cited 34 times
In Reliance Universal and Wackenhut, supra, one entity purchased the business of another and continued the previous operation without significant change, employing substantially all of the seller's organized personnel.
Wackenhut v. Int'l U., United Plant Guard W
332 F.2d 954 (9th Cir. 1964) Cited 33 times
In Wackenhut the purchaser acquired substantially all the assets of the seller and assumed substantially all the seller's liabilities, although it did not expressly assume the seller's labor agreement.

Fed-Mart

15 Cited authorities

Holding that a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement survived a corporate merger and bound the resulting corporation

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"

Determining whether newsboys were independent contractors or employees under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA")

Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

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.”

Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.

Finding that a repudiation three weeks after unlawful conduct was inadequate

In Reliance Universal and Wackenhut, supra, one entity purchased the business of another and continued the previous operation without significant change, employing substantially all of the seller's organized personnel.

In Wackenhut the purchaser acquired substantially all the assets of the seller and assumed substantially all the seller's liabilities, although it did not expressly assume the seller's labor agreement.