§
Bechtel Corp.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Labor Board

    350 U.S. 270 (1956)   Cited 403 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"

  2. Labor Board v. Sands Mfg. Co.

    306 U.S. 332 (1939)   Cited 139 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Sands Mfg. Co., 306 U.S. 332, 59 S.Ct. 508, 83 L.Ed. 682, affirming the ruling of this Court in 6 Cir., 96 F.2d 721, the Supreme Court held the employer justified in abandoning further negotiations with the Union when conditions showed the uselessness of continuing with them.

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thayer Co.

    213 F.2d 748 (1st Cir. 1954)   Cited 40 times
    In Thayer, the court first announced that if the activity causing dismissal was protected under § 7 of the Act then denial of reinstatement was unlawful. If the activity was unprotected under § 7, however, the legality of the denial was to be determined according to a balancing test.

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Clearfield Cheese

    213 F.2d 70 (3d Cir. 1954)   Cited 20 times
    In NLRB v. Clearfield Cheese Co., 213 F.2d 70 (3 Cir. 1954), a Board order to reinstate discharged striking employees was modified to exclude compulsory reinstatement of 21 employees guilty of picket line misconduct.

  5. National Labor Rel. Board v. E.A. Laboratories

    188 F.2d 885 (2d Cir. 1951)   Cited 15 times

    No. 79, Docket 21773. Argued April 3, 1951. Decided May 7, 1951. David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel and Harvey B. Diamond, all of Washington, D.C., for National Labor Relations Board, petitioner. Olvany, Eisner Donnelly, New York City (Merwin Lewis and Robert F. Welch, New York City, of counsel), for E.A. Laboratories, Inc., respondent. Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CLARK, Circuit Judges. AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge. The

  6. Leonard v. Taylor

    53 N.E.2d 705 (Mass. 1944)   Cited 22 times

    October 6, 1941. March 1, 1944. Present: FIELD, C.J., DONAHUE, QUA, RONAN, JJ. Evidence, Competency, Paper produced on demand, Refreshment of witness's recollection. Witness, Refreshment of recollection. A written statement by the defendant, which was produced by his counsel in compliance with a demand made by the plaintiff's counsel during cross-examination of the defendant and was thereupon inspected by the plaintiff's counsel, became admissible upon being offered by the defendant; the fact that