Andrew Jergens Co. of California

9 Cited authorities

Edison Co. v. Labor Board
305 U.S. 197 (1938) Cited 19,462 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay
Olmstead v. United States
277 U.S. 438 (1928) Cited 1,579 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that a wiretap was not a search because “[t]here was no entry of the houses or offices of the defendants”
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board
313 U.S. 177 (1941) Cited 873 times
Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”
Burdeau v. McDowell
256 U.S. 465 (1921) Cited 993 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that when "no official of the federal government had anything to do with the wrongful seizure of the petitioner's property, . . . there was no invasion of the security afforded by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, as whatever wrong was done was the act of individuals in taking the property of another"
Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.
309 U.S. 350 (1940) Cited 318 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA
Nardone v. United States
302 U.S. 379 (1937) Cited 274 times
Holding that where telephone message was intercepted in violation of Federal Communications Act the "plain words" of the statute prohibited "recit[ation] [of] the contents of the message in testimony before a court"
Labor Bd. v. Greyhound Lines
303 U.S. 261 (1938) Cited 264 times
In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.
Southport Pet., Co. v. N.L.R.B
315 U.S. 100 (1942) Cited 187 times
Ruling that dissolution of company and transfer of assets did not prevent enforcement of a Board order
Labor Board v. Falk Corp.
308 U.S. 453 (1940) Cited 140 times
In Falk, the two proceedings were held simultaneously, whereas in our case the representation case preceded the unfair labor case.

Andrew Jergens Co. of California

9 Cited authorities

Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

Holding that a wiretap was not a search because “[t]here was no entry of the houses or offices of the defendants”

Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA

Holding that where telephone message was intercepted in violation of Federal Communications Act the "plain words" of the statute prohibited "recit[ation] [of] the contents of the message in testimony before a court"

In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.

Ruling that dissolution of company and transfer of assets did not prevent enforcement of a Board order

In Falk, the two proceedings were held simultaneously, whereas in our case the representation case preceded the unfair labor case.