Bernhardt Bros. Tugboat Service, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

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"
Labor Board v. Pittsburgh S.S. Co.
337 U.S. 656 (1949) Cited 88 times
Holding "total rejection of an opposed view cannot of itself impugn the integrity or competence of a trier of fact"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. McGahey
233 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1956) Cited 133 times
In N.L.R.B. v. McGahey, 233 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1956), this court described casual and moderate inquiries, even as to union preference, absent evidence indicating that the employee has reason to consider the inquiries a threat of reprisals, as not constituting an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8(a)(1).
N.L.R.B. v. Marcus Trucking Co.
286 F.2d 583 (2d Cir. 1961) Cited 65 times
Treating application of undisputed legal standard to facts as “question of fact” subject to “substantial evidence” standard of § 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act
N.L.R.B. v. Griggs Equipment, Inc.
307 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1962) Cited 52 times
In Griggs, the issue was not even mentioned in the Board's Decision, but is noted in the decision of the court of appeals.
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.
N.L.R.B. v. Revere Metal Art Co.
280 F.2d 96 (2d Cir. 1960) Cited 25 times
No. 242, Docket 25868. Argued March 3, 1960. Decided May 6, 1960. On Petition for Rehearing June 16, 1960. Duane B. Beeson, Washington, D.C., (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel and Fred Landess, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Jacob E. Hurwitz, New York City, for respondent Union. Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and MOORE and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges. FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations
N.L.R.B. v. United States Steel Corporation
278 F.2d 896 (3d Cir. 1960) Cited 25 times
No. 13011. Argued March 8, 1960. Decided April 13, 1960. Supplemental Opinion May 17, 1960. Duane Beeson, Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Standau E. Weinbrecht, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. W.D. Armour, Pittsburgh, Pa. (John C. Bane, Jr., John G. Wayman, Reed, Smith, Shaw McClay, Robert Molinar, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for United States Steel Corp. J
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Robbins Tire
161 F.2d 798 (5th Cir. 1947) Cited 35 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire Rubber Co., 5 Cir., 161 F.2d 798, 800, where the proportion of the witnesses against, to those for, the examiner's conclusions was far greater than it is here, we held exactly to the contrary of this contention.
N.L.R.B. v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp.
297 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1961) Cited 11 times
In NLRB v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., 297 F.2d 94 (2 Cir. 1961), our court declined to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board asserting jurisdiction over Reliance Fuel Corporation, a company that sold fuel for heating purposes to New York State customers.

Bernhardt Bros. Tugboat Service, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

Stating that the purpose of the Act is to encourage and protect "full freedom of association for workers"

Holding "total rejection of an opposed view cannot of itself impugn the integrity or competence of a trier of fact"

Treating application of undisputed legal standard to facts as “question of fact” subject to “substantial evidence” standard of § 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act

In Griggs, the issue was not even mentioned in the Board's Decision, but is noted in the decision of the court of appeals.

In N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire Rubber Co., 5 Cir., 161 F.2d 798, 800, where the proportion of the witnesses against, to those for, the examiner's conclusions was far greater than it is here, we held exactly to the contrary of this contention.

In NLRB v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., 297 F.2d 94 (2 Cir. 1961), our court declined to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board asserting jurisdiction over Reliance Fuel Corporation, a company that sold fuel for heating purposes to New York State customers.