§

RWJ Corporation

08-CA-037361 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 31, 2009)
RWJ Corporation

11 Cited authorities

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,687 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Savair Manufacturing Co.

    414 U.S. 270 (1973)   Cited 123 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that although an employee may not be "legally bound to vote for the union and has not promised to do so in any formal sense" some "would feel obliged " to cast a union vote after having signed a union recognition slip

  3. Conley v. N.L.R.B

    520 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2008)   Cited 13 times
    Finding anti-union animus when employer terminated an employee for previously tolerated conduct

  4. Shelden v. Barre Belt Granite Emp. Union Pension

    25 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 1994)   Cited 19 times
    Declaring "[i]t is well settled that the existence of a plan to do a given act is relevant to show that thereafter the act was in fact done"

  5. King Elec., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    440 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2006)   Cited 6 times

    Nos. 04-1440, 05-1012. Argued February 9, 2006. Decided March 7, 2006. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Maurice Baskin argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Alan G. Ross and Lesley A. Pate. Philip A. Hostak, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Rosenfeld, Acting General Counsel at the time the brief was filed, Margery E. Lieber

  6. Freund Baking Co. v. National Labor rel

    165 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir. 1999)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "the Act . . . bars both crude and subtle forms of vote-buying on the part of the union" and citing NLRB v. Savair Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 270, 279, 94 S.Ct. 495, 38 L.Ed.2d 495, which held that a union's promise of "a special benefit to those who sign up for a union" runs afoul of "[t]he right of a free choice . . . inherent in the principles reflected in § 9(c)" of the Act

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Tennessee Plastics, Inc.

    525 F.2d 670 (6th Cir. 1975)   Cited 1 times

    No. 73-1445. November 3, 1975. Elliot Moore, Peter Nash, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., David Miller, John Irving, Walter C. Phillips, Director, Reg. 10, N.L.R.B., Atlanta, Ga., John D. Burgoyne, Patrick Hardin, Julius Rosenbaum, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Anthony J. Leggio, Mitchell, Pate Anderson, James W. Wimberly, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent. R. Jeffrey Bixler, Mulholland, Hickey Lyman, Toledo, Ohio, for intervenor. Before EDWARDS, CELEBREZZE and LIVELY, Circuit

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Universal Camera

    179 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1950)   Cited 24 times

    No. 54, Docket 21395. Argued December 6, 1949. Decided January 10, 1950. A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ruth Weyand, Asst. Gen. Counsel, William J. Avrutis, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman Hays, New York City, Frederick R. Livingston, New York City, for respondent. On petition of the National Labor Relations Board for an order, "enforcing" an order of the Board to "cease

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second

  10. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,671 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  11. Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 803   Cited 13,040 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities