ยง

Breitling Brothers Construction Co.

153 N.L.R.B. 685 (N.L.R.B. 1965)
Breitling Brothers Construction Co.

28 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Denver Bldg. Council

    341 U.S. 675 (1951)   Cited 494 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming Board's assertion of jurisdiction over activities taking place at local construction site based on finding that "any widespread application of the practices charged might well result in substantially decreasing" the flow of interstate commerce

  2. J.I. Case Co. v. Labor Board

    321 U.S. 332 (1944)   Cited 457 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the result of a collective bargaining agreement is not "a contract of employment except in rare cases; no one has a job by reason of it and no obligation to any individual ordinarily comes into existence from it alone"

  3. Labor Board v. Reliance Fuel Corp.

    371 U.S. 224 (1963)   Cited 133 times
    In Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., the Board found that Reliance Fuel Oil Corp. ("Reliance"), a New York corporation engaged in the business of selling fuel oil for heating purposes and servicing oil burners and boilers, was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the NLRA because it had "purchased a substantial amount of fuel oil from Gulf, a company concededly engaged in interstate commerce."

  4. Polish Alliance v. Labor Board

    322 U.S. 643 (1944)   Cited 138 times
    In Polish National Alliance v. NLRB, 322 U.S. 643, 64 S.Ct. 1196, 88 L.Ed. 1509 (1944), the Court held that the National Labor Relations Act applied to a fraternal organization providing death, disability and accident benefits to its members and their beneficiaries.

  5. 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 ยง 8(a)(1).

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Threads, Incorporated

    308 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1962)   Cited 37 times
    In NLRB v. Threads, Inc., 308 F.2d 1, 9 (4th Cir. 1962), in which I concurred, we made the logic-defying statement that prior (or presumably simultaneous) unlawful labor practices can "not transform protected free speech into unlawful and unprotected speech."

  7. Agwilines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Bd.

    87 F.2d 146 (5th Cir. 1936)   Cited 74 times
    In Agwilines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 87 F.2d 146, 147, and in Waterman S.S. Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 760, a contempt proceeding involving the ascertainment of back payments necessary to make employees whole, we dealt with the purpose and effect of the "make whole" provisions of the statute.

  8. Lodge 743, In. Ass'n of Mach. v. United Aircraft

    337 F.2d 5 (2d Cir. 1964)   Cited 21 times

    No. 384, Docket 28595. Argued May 26, 1964. Decided October 1, 1964. Mozart G. Ratner, Plato E. Papps, Washington, D.C., William S. Zeman, Hartford, Conn., for appellees. Joseph C. Wells, Winthrop A. Johns, Washington, D.C. (Reilly Wells, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for appellant. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Melvin J. Welles, Solomon I. Hirsh, Glen M. Bendixsen, Attys., N.L.R.B., for intervenor. Before LUMBARD

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Cent. Okla. Milk Producers Ass'n

    285 F.2d 495 (10th Cir. 1960)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting enforcement of N.L.R.B. order finding milk tank-truck drivers entitled to overtime under FLSA where drivers were employed by separate trucking entity owned by dairy association

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Aurora City Lines, Inc.

    299 F.2d 229 (7th Cir. 1962)   Cited 17 times

    No. 13465. February 2, 1962. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, A.I. Mendelsohn, Atty., Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Melvin Pollack and H.M. Levy, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Fred M. Petit, Chicago, Ill., for respondent. Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and DUFFY and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges. HASTINGS, Chief Judge. The National Labor Relations Board (Board) has petitioned under section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations