§

Simplex Time Recorder Co.

165 N.L.R.B. 812 (N.L.R.B. 1967)
Simplex Time Recorder Co.

9 Cited authorities

  1. 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.”

  2. N.L.R.B. v. Camco, Incorporated

    340 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1965)   Cited 76 times
    Holding that knowledge of union activities could be inferred from the fact that an employer discharged eleven of sixteen union adherents without discharging any of its remaining seventy-four employees

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Prince Macaroni Manufacturing Co.

    329 F.2d 803 (1st Cir. 1964)   Cited 22 times

    No. 6171. March 31, 1964. Allison W. Brown, Jr., Attorney, Washington, D.C., with whom Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Stuart Broad, Attorney, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for petitioner. William F. Joy, Boston, Mass., with whom John J. Desmond, III, and Morgan, Brown, Kearns Joy, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for respondent. Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Illinois Tool Works

    153 F.2d 811 (7th Cir. 1946)   Cited 47 times
    Noting that the test for violations of sec. 8, now codified as sec. 8, of the NLRA is whether "the employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act," and that actual or successful coercion need not be shown in order for the Board to find a violation

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Associated Naval Architects, Inc.

    355 F.2d 788 (4th Cir. 1966)   Cited 17 times
    In NLRB v. Associated Naval Architects, Inc., 355 F.2d 788, 791 (4th Cir. 1966), the court made clear that evidence of actually coercive statements was not necessary.

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Morris Fishman and Sons, Inc.

    278 F.2d 792 (3d Cir. 1960)   Cited 16 times

    No. 12986. Argued December 7, 1959. Decided May 13, 1960. Melvin Welles, Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Alfred Avins, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. James L. Price, Philadelphia, Pa. (Richman, Price Jamieson, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for respondent. Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and KALODNER and STALEY, Circuit Judges. BIGGS, Chief Judge. This is a petition

  7. A.P. Green Fire Brick Company v. N.L.R.B

    326 F.2d 910 (8th Cir. 1964)   Cited 9 times

    No. 17293. January 30, 1964. Robert J. Griffith, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner. William J. Avrutis, Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, N.L.R.B., and Melvin Pollack, Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before VOGEL, BLACKMUN and RIDGE, Circuit Judges. VOGEL, Circuit Judge. A.P. Green Fire Brick Company, petitioner,

  8. Division 1142, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    294 F.2d 264 (D.C. Cir. 1961)   Cited 4 times

    No. 16007. Argued May 15, 1961. Decided July 6, 1961. Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied En Banc September 12, 1961. Mr. George Schatzki, Dallas, Tex., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Texas, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, and Mr. L.N.D. Wells, Jr., Dallas, Tex., with whom Mr. Bernard Cushman, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner. Mrs. Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel

  9. Solvay Process Co. v. National Labor Rel. Board

    117 F.2d 83 (5th Cir. 1941)   Cited 14 times

    No. 9519. January 4, 1941. Rehearing Denied March 8, 1941. Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Petition by the Solvay Process Company for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board sitting at Washington, D.C. The Board prayed that the order be enforced. Petition dismissed; enforcement decree granted. C.V. Porter, of Baton Rouge, La., and T. Justin Moore and Edmund M. Preston, both of Richmond, Va., for petitioner. Victor A. Sachse, of Baton Rouge,