5 Cited authorities
Mine Workers v. Pennington
381 U.S. 657 (1965) Cited 1,640 times 21 Legal AnalysesHolding that immunity extends to petitioning conduct “either standing alone or as part of a broader scheme”
Machinists Local v. Labor Board
362 U.S. 411 (1960) Cited 276 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding 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.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Natl. Motor B. Co.
105 F.2d 652 (9th Cir. 1939) Cited 39 timesNo. 8869. June 2, 1939. As Amended June 15, 1939. On Petition for the Enforcement of, and on Petition to Review and Set Aside, an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Proceeding by the National Labor Relations Board, petitioner, against the National Motor Bearing Company, for enforcement of an order issued by the Board, consolidated with a proceeding by the International Association of Machinists and Production Workers, Local 1518, affiliated with International Association of Machinists,
N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company
304 F.2d 368 (5th Cir. 1962) Cited 3 timesNo. 19106. June 22, 1962. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Alfred Brummel, Atty., Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Rosanna A. Blake, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Karl Mueller, Harold E. Mueller, Mueller Mueller, Fort Worth, Tex., for respondent. Before RIVES, BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges. WISDOM, Circuit Judge. This case presents the question whether it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to