ยง

Aluminum Extrusions, Inc.

148 N.L.R.B. 1662 (N.L.R.B. 1964)
Aluminum Extrusions, Inc.

5 Cited authorities

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

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,674 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. Labor Board v. Cabot Carbon Co.

    360 U.S. 203 (1959)   Cited 57 times
    Concluding that "dealing with" as used in 29 U.S.C. ยง 152 is a "broad term" and is not synonymous to "bargaining with"

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Walton Manufacturing Company

    289 F.2d 177 (5th Cir. 1961)   Cited 32 times

    No. 18345. March 17, 1961. Russell Specter, Atty., N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Melvin Pollack, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Robert T. Thompson, Alexander E. Wilson, Jr., Wilson, Branch Barwick, J. Frank Ogletree, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent. Before RIVES and WISDOM, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENBERRY, District Judge. RIVES, Circuit Judge. This petition seeks enforcement

  4. Reserve Supply Corp. of L.I., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    317 F.2d 785 (2d Cir. 1963)   Cited 22 times
    In Reserve Supply Corp., we explained that "[w]hen the statutes are silent," as they are here, "the question of whether interest shall be awarded is to be determined in accordance with the historic judicial principle that one for whose financial advantage an obligation was assumed or imposed, and who has suffered actual money damages by another's breach of that obligation, should be fairly compensated for the loss thereby sustained."

  5. Kimble Glass Company v. Natl. Labor Rel. Board

    230 F.2d 484 (6th Cir. 1956)   Cited 2 times

    No. 12680. February 29, 1956. James M. Guiher, Steptoe Johnson, Clarksburg, W. Va., C.W. Neuhaus, Fred E. Fuller, Toledo, Ohio, for petitioner. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Louis Schwartz, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before MARTIN, MILLER and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case, involving a petition to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board and the Board's cross-petition for enforcement, was heard on the briefs, record and oral argument of counsel. The Board