§

Anderson Express Ltd.

126 N.L.R.B. 798 (N.L.R.B. 1960)
Anderson Express Ltd.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Radio Officers v. Labor Board

    347 U.S. 17 (1954)   Cited 470 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.

    360 U.S. 301 (1959)   Cited 106 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred

  3. W.W. Cross Co. v. National Labor Rel. Board

    174 F.2d 875 (1st Cir. 1949)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that " 'wages' " in the NLRA "embraces within its meaning direct and immediate economic benefits flowing from the employment relationship covers a group insurance program"

  4. National Labor Rel. Board v. Gaynor News Co.

    197 F.2d 719 (2d Cir. 1952)   Cited 45 times
    In Gaynor it was conceded that the sole criterion for extra payments was union membership, and the vacation payments were admittedly gratuitous.

  5. Red Star Exp. Lines v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    196 F.2d 78 (2d Cir. 1952)   Cited 34 times
    In Red Star Express Lines v. National Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 196 F.2d 78, the court condemned the contract although the so-called general savings clause provided that any specific provision which was even "affected" by Taft-Hartley was to be without effect.

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gottfried Baking

    210 F.2d 772 (2d Cir. 1954)   Cited 24 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Gottfried Baking Co., 210 F.2d 772 (2 Cir., 1954), this court considered and rejected the same argument on nearly identical facts: "We think it is unimportant whether or not the Association existed as a formal entity, so long as it is clear that [the employer] acted jointly with other employers in the Association in the negotiation of collective agreements, as the impact upon interstate commerce would be the same in either case."

  7. National Labor Rel. Board v. Assoc. Machines

    239 F.2d 858 (6th Cir. 1956)

    No. 12841. December 26, 1956. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, William J. Avrutis, Washington, D.C., and Charles M. Ryan, Regional Director, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner. Probst, Gallucci O'Malley, Detroit, Mich., for respondent. Before MARTIN, McALLISTER and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. The oral arguments, briefs, and the entire record have been heard and considered on this petition by the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order; And it appearing that there is substantial evidence