§

America Piles, Inc.

333 N.L.R.B. 1118 (N.L.R.B. 2001)
America Piles, Inc.

5 Cited authorities

  1. 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.

  2. Local 58 Pension Trust Fund v. Gary's Elec

    227 F.3d 646 (6th Cir. 2000)   Cited 28 times
    Holding the defendant company failed to establish fraud in the execution where its argument "basically comes down to [the company owner's] claim that he was ignorant of the type of arrangement to which he was agreeing when he signed" the collective bargaining agreement at issue, but "failed to demonstrate that [he] carried out his basic responsibility to review" the agreement

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Int'l Bro. of Elec Wkrs., Local 11

    772 F.2d 571 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 9 times

    No. 84-7439. Argued and Submitted March 4, 1985. Decided September 24, 1985. William R. Stewart, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel, Frederick Havard, Atty., Washington, D.C., for petitioner N.L.R.B. Robert Newman, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners-intervenors Loveall, Sokol and Mott. Elizabeth R. Lishner, Davis, Frommer Jesinger, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before GOODWIN, FLETCHER and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges. GOODWIN

  4. Boston Sec., Inc. v. United Bonding Ins. Co.

    441 F.2d 1302 (8th Cir. 1971)   Cited 17 times

    Nos. 20241, 20248. May 10, 1971. Francis L. Kenney, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., for United Bonding Ins. Co. Alan E. Popkin, Rosecan Popkin, St. Louis, Mo., for Boston Securities, Inc. Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, GIBSON and LAY, Circuit Judges. LAY, Circuit Judge. This is a suit on a fidelity bond. Plaintiff Boston Securities, Inc., which is in the business of making small loans, recovered against its bonding company a judgment for $17,700.45 with interest at 6 percent per annum from March 8, 1967. 309 F. Supp

  5. Gatliff Coal Co. v. Cox

    152 F.2d 52 (6th Cir. 1945)   Cited 25 times
    Agreeing with the argument that, absent an allegation of fraud or mutual mistake, the parol evidence rule would bar estoppel defense