§

Amcor Rigid Plastics

13-CA-145992 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 6, 2015)
Amcor Rigid Plastics

6 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. 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.

  3. N.L.R.B. v. General Fabrications Corp.

    222 F.3d 218 (6th Cir. 2000)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding the NLRB is entitled to summary enforcement of unchallenged portions of orders

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Electra-Food Machinery, Inc.

    621 F.2d 956 (9th Cir. 1980)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that employer overstepped its role when it refused to enter into written collective bargaining agreement because it believed union's entering the deal would violate union constitution

  5. 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

  6. 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