§

Blount Brothers Corp.

230 N.L.R.B. 586 (N.L.R.B. 1977)
Blount Brothers Corp.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Burnup Sims

    379 U.S. 21 (1964)   Cited 106 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

  2. Garment Workers v. Quality Mfg. Co.

    420 U.S. 276 (1975)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that because the employer “failed to file a petition for reconsideration as permitted by Board Rules and Regulations,” the employer could not assert its objection on appeal

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Ben Pekin Corp.

    452 F.2d 205 (7th Cir. 1971)   Cited 30 times

    No. 18894. October 4, 1971. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Janet Skaare Morris, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Herman M. Levy, Atty., N.L.R.B., for petitioner. Harold A. Katz, Irving M. Friedman, Charles Barnhill, Jr., Zenia S. Goodman, Chicago, Ill., Katz Friedman, Chicago, Ill., for respondent. Before HASTINGS, Senior Circuit Judge, and KERNER and SPRECHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This application by the

  4. United Aircraft Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    440 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1971)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that because the prevailing party could have sought review of an adverse determination through cross-appeal, "the general rule that `determinations adverse to the winning litigant do not have conclusive effect as collateral estoppel' should not be applied."

  5. Murphy Diesel Company v. N.L.R.B

    454 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. 1971)   Cited 14 times
    In Murphy Diesel Co. v. NLRB, 454 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. 1971), the court emphasized that the "right to impose work rules and discipline" was not a part of the contract or the negotiations leading to it.

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Tom Wood Pontiac, Inc.

    447 F.2d 383 (7th Cir. 1971)   Cited 12 times
    Usurping union's role in grievance procedure

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Quality Manufacturing Company

    481 F.2d 1018 (4th Cir. 1973)   Cited 10 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Quality Manufacturing Company (4th Cir. 1973) 481 F.2d 1018 [83 L.R.R.M. 2817] and Mobil OilCorporation v. N.L.R.B. (7th Cir. 1973) 482 F.2d 842 [83 L.R.R.M. 2823], the respective Circuit Courts of Appeals refused to enforce a National Labor Relations Board rule which recognized the right of an employee to have a union representative present at any employer-employee interview when the employee reasonably anticipated that disciplinary action might result from the interview.

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Wire Products Manufacturing Corp.

    484 F.2d 760 (7th Cir. 1973)   Cited 5 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Wire Products Manufacturing Corp., 484 F.2d 760 (7th Cir. 1973), this court considered the standard of review where a § 8(a)(3) violation is alleged, saying in part.

  9. Machaby v. N.L.R.B

    377 F.2d 59 (1st Cir. 1967)

    No. 6831. Heard April 3, 1967. Decided April 26, 1967. Warren H. Pyle, Boston, Mass., with whom Angoff, Goldman, Manning Pyle, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for petitioner. Peter M. Giesey, Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Gary Green, Washington, D.C., Atty., were on brief for respondents. Allan A. Tepper, Boston, Mass., with whom Snyder, Tepper, Berlin Katz, Boston, Mass., was