Medeco Security Locks, Incorporated v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Medeco Security Locks, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that no substantial evidence of knowledge could be inferred from the company’s decision to fire a worker within a year after he had ceased to be a visible supporter of the union and had disavowed further interest in the union
• \[Section 7's] protection applies even to activities that do not involve unions or collective bargaining.\
• “Unlike violations of § 8(a)(3), an employer’s antiunion motivation is not a required element of § 8(a)(1).”
• “[T]he well-settled test . . . is whether ‘under all the circumstances the employer’s conduct may reasonably tend to coerce . . . employees’” (quoting NLRB v. Grand Canyon Mining Co., 116 F.3d 1039, 1044 (4th Cir. 1997))
• “[T]he well-settled test . . . is whether ‘under all the circumstances the employer’s conduct may reasonably tend to coerce . . . employees’” (quoting NLRB v. Grand Canyon Mining Co., 116 F.3d 1039, 1044 (4th Cir. 1997))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).