§

Hershey Foods Corp.

207 N.L.R.B. 897 (N.L.R.B. 1973)
Hershey Foods Corp.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.

    388 U.S. 175 (1967)   Cited 334 times
    Holding that majority rule concept is at the center of federal labor policy

  2. Radio Officers v. Labor Board

    347 U.S. 17 (1954)   Cited 471 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

  3. Labor Board v. General Motors

    373 U.S. 734 (1963)   Cited 191 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that termination is also the appropriate sanction for failure to pay fees under an agency-shop clause

  4. Booster Lodge No. 405, Int. v. N.L.R.B

    459 F.2d 1143 (D.C. Cir. 1972)   Cited 23 times

    Nos. 24687, 24744. Argued September 15, 1971. Decided February 3, 1972. Mr. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Plato E. Papps, Washington, D.C., and C. Paul Barker, New Orleans, La., were on the brief, for petitioner in No. 24,687 and intervenor in No. 24,744. Mr. C. Dale Stout, New Orleans, La., for petitioner in No. 24,744 and intervenor in No. 24, 687. Mr. Glen M. Bendixsen, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Washington, D.C

  5. Union Starch Ref. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    186 F.2d 1008 (7th Cir. 1951)   Cited 51 times
    In Union Starch, the employees had tendered dues and an initiation fee but were denied membership in the union for refusal to file union application forms, attend a union meeting or take the union oath.

  6. Local 749, Int. Bro. of Boilermakers, v. NLRB

    466 F.2d 343 (D.C. Cir. 1972)   Cited 6 times

    No. 71-2006. June 30, 1972. Rehearing Denied August 16, 1972. Messrs. Charles P. Scully and Donald C. Carroll, San Francisco, Cal., were on the brief for petitioner. Messrs. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Joseph E. Mayer and William H. DuRoss, III, Attys., N.L.R.B., were on the brief for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before McGOWAN, LEVENTHAL and MacKINNON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Petitioner Union challenges the National Labor Relations