§

Anchorage Businessmen's Association

124 N.L.R.B. 662 (N.L.R.B. 1959)
Anchorage Businessmen's Association

15 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co.

    311 U.S. 584 (1941)   Cited 338 times
    Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"

  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. Labor Board v. Truck Drivers Union

    353 U.S. 87 (1957)   Cited 197 times
    Discussing congressional debate over the Taft-Hartley amendments of 1947

  4. Labor Board v. Newport News Co.

    308 U.S. 241 (1939)   Cited 119 times
    Upholding finding of domination where company determined structure of organization and could choose whether to adopt recommendations

  5. Labor Board v. Southern Bell Co.

    319 U.S. 50 (1943)   Cited 42 times
    In Seber, the United States Supreme Court addressed a similar statute which provided that certain Indian lands would be immune from state taxes if two requirements were met: that the title to the lands be held by an Indian subject to restrictions against alienation or encumbrance or approval of the Secretary of the Interior; and the lands were purchased out of trust or restricted funds.

  6. Labor Board v. Electric Cleaner Co.

    315 U.S. 685 (1942)   Cited 39 times

    CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 588. Argued March 5, 1942. Decided March 30, 1942. 1. The finding of the National Labor Relations Board that, by a supplementary oral contract between an employer and a labor union, it was agreed only that new employees would be required to join the union, was supported by substantial evidence. P. 690. 2. The conclusion of the Board that the closed-shop agreement between the employer and a labor union in this case was not valid

  7. Wayside Press v. National Labor Relations Bd.

    206 F.2d 862 (9th Cir. 1953)   Cited 28 times
    In Wayside Press, Inc., v. N.L.R.B., 9 Cir., 206 F.2d 862, we held that an employer's furnishing of facilities and assistance for the organization of an inside union does not establish employer domination of such union, unless it occurs in a setting of such manifest employer preference for the proposed independent union or hostility toward an outside union that it intrudes upon the freedom of choice which the Act was designed to secure to employees.

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Indianapolis N

    210 F.2d 501 (7th Cir. 1954)   Cited 19 times

    No. 11002. February 19, 1954. George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Louis Schwartz, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Dean E. Denlinger, Atty., N.L.R.B., Dayton, Ohio, for petitioner. Frederic D. Anderson, Howard J. Cofield, Barnes, Hickam, Pantzer Boyd, Indianapolis, Ind., for respondent. Before DUFFY and LINDLEY, Circuit Judges. LINDLEY, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board filed this petition for enforcement

  9. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    112 F.2d 657 (2d Cir. 1940)   Cited 34 times
    In Westinghouse Electric Mfg. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 112 F.2d 657, 660, a disestablishment order was sustained in a much weaker case than the present.

  10. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    270 F.2d 40 (3d Cir. 1959)   Cited 11 times
    In Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. v. NLRB, 270 F.2d 40, 43 (3d Cir. 1959), the court, in sustaining the Board's finding that a shut-down by the employer was not motivated by a fear that a sudden strike would endanger plant and personnel, stated that "to apply hindsight in the light of what later occurred would not be a true assessment of the company's motives.