§

A.P.W. Products Co., Inc.

137 N.L.R.B. 25 (N.L.R.B. 1962)
A.P.W. Products Co., Inc.

19 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Laughlin

    301 U.S. 1 (1937)   Cited 1,499 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis

  2. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board

    313 U.S. 177 (1941)   Cited 871 times
    Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

  3. Labor Board v. Seven-Up Co.

    344 U.S. 344 (1953)   Cited 368 times
    Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding

  4. Virginia Electric Co. v. Board

    319 U.S. 533 (1943)   Cited 326 times
    Stating that the purpose of the Act is to encourage and protect "full freedom of association for workers"

  5. Teamsters Local v. Labor Board

    365 U.S. 667 (1961)   Cited 174 times
    Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria

  6. Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.

    309 U.S. 350 (1940)   Cited 315 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

  7. 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

  8. Morrison-Knudsen Company v. N.L.R.B

    276 F.2d 63 (9th Cir. 1960)   Cited 33 times
    In Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 9 Cir., 276 F.2d 63, the court reaffirmed this decision, citing our case of N.L.R.B. v. International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO, 1 Cir., 1958, 261 F.2d 347. For reasons developed herein, we believe this an undue extension of that case.

  9. Time-O-Matic, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    264 F.2d 96 (7th Cir. 1959)   Cited 32 times

    No. 12424. March 5, 1959. Edward B. Miller, Merrill Shepard, Willis S. Ryza, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner, Time-O-Matic, Inc. Pope Ballard, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for petitioner. Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel, Atty., Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Fred S. Landess, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before DUFFY, Chief Judge and HASTINGS and PARKINSON, Circuit Judges. HASTINGS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Puerto Rico Rayon Mills, Inc.

    293 F.2d 941 (1st Cir. 1961)   Cited 22 times
    Enforcing an order based on a theory of violation not alleged but fully litigated

  11. Section 160 - Prevention of unfair labor practices

    29 U.S.C. § 160   Cited 7,059 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the procedures for unfair labor practice cases mandated by R.C. 4117.12 and 4117.13 are substantively identical to those established in NLRA to govern unfair labor practice cases before NLRB