§

Allen-Morrison Sign Co., Inc.

79 N.L.R.B. 904 (N.L.R.B. 1948)
Allen-Morrison Sign Co., Inc.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.

    312 U.S. 426 (1941)   Cited 506 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"

  2. I.A. of M. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 72 (1940)   Cited 317 times
    In International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L. Ed. 50, there had been a long history of management favoritism to the established and hostility to the aspiring union; and in Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. 702, 703, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818, 88 L.Ed. 1020, the employer had "conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the union won the election."

  3. May Stores Co. v. Labor Board

    326 U.S. 376 (1945)   Cited 257 times
    Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"

  4. Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    321 U.S. 678 (1944)   Cited 269 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8

  5. Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board

    321 U.S. 702 (1944)   Cited 252 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.

  6. H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 514 (1941)   Cited 241 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.

  7. Labor Board v. Bradford Dyeing Assn

    310 U.S. 318 (1940)   Cited 150 times
    Construing "affecting commerce"

  8. Matter of Inland Steel Co., (N.D.Ind. 1980)

    492 F. Supp. 1310 (N.D. Ind. 1980)   Cited 12 times
    In Inland Steel, the district judge examined the structure and legislative history of section 8 of the Act and concluded that Congress did not intend to grant the Secretary of Labor the authority to inspect documents pursuant to a warrant.

  9. Matter of Emerson Radio Phonograph Corporation

    12 Misc. 2d 1000 (N.Y. Misc. 1958)   Cited 2 times

    June 16, 1958 Paul W. Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York ( Arthur V. Savage of counsel), for petitioner. Harry Loeb Mostow for respondent. VINCENT A. LUPIANO, J. This is a motion to compel arbitration and to stay the law action between the parties. No requirement for arbitration nor reference to arbitration was in any wise contained in any of the written or printed matter which was the subject of the subcontract between the parties. A provision for arbitration

  10. Matter of Heffer v. Sullivan Dry Dock Repair Co.

    262 App. Div. 786 (N.Y. App. Div. 1941)

    May 7, 1941. Present — Hill, P.J., Crapser, Bliss, Schenck and Foster, JJ. The decedent was employed as an iron-worker's helper. On September 28, 1939, he was the victim of an accident which caused his death four days later. At the time of the accident he had been employed by this employer for twenty-one working days at the rate of four dollars per day, plus overtime. The employer's work was seasonal and because of this the claimant presented evidence of the decedent's earnings in other employments