§

California Laundry & Linen Supply

164 N.L.R.B. 426 (N.L.R.B. 1967)
California Laundry & Linen Supply

12 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. Labor Board v. Fruit Packers

    377 U.S. 58 (1964)   Cited 236 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NLRA section 8(b)(B) does not prohibit "peaceful picketing . . . limited . . . to persuading Safeway customers not to buy Washington State apples when they traded in Safeway stores"

  3. 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"

  4. Labor Board v. Servette

    377 U.S. 46 (1964)   Cited 74 times
    Holding under section 8(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b), that statutory protection for the distribution of handbills would be undermined if a threat to engage in protected conduct were not itself protected

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bus. Mach

    228 F.2d 553 (2d Cir. 1955)   Cited 67 times
    In National Labor Relations Bd. v. Business Mach. etc., CIO (228 F.2d 553) the Circuit Court of Appeals for this circuit declared (p. 559) that "The only thing proscribed by § 8(b)(4) is inducement or encouragement of the employees of the customers".

  6. Goldfinger v. Feintuch

    276 N.Y. 281 (N.Y. 1937)   Cited 77 times
    In Goldfinger v. Feintuch, 276 N.Y. 281, 11 N.E.2d 910 (1937) the New York Little Norris-LaGuardia Act was upheld against constitutional attack.

  7. Douds v. Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Ect.

    75 F. Supp. 672 (S.D.N.Y. 1948)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Douds v. Metropolitan Federation of Architects, etc., 75 F. Supp. 672 (S.D.N.Y. 1948), the court laid heavy emphasis on the economic effect of the work performed by the ally's employees.

  8. Cone Brothers Contract. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    235 F.2d 37 (5th Cir. 1956)   Cited 20 times

    No. 15830. June 22, 1956. Rehearing Denied July 20, 1956. Ralph C. Dell, Le Roy Allen, Tampa, Fla., Reeves, Allen Dell, Tampa, Fla., of counsel, for petitioner. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, David P. Findling, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel, Atty., Washington, D.C., Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before RIVES, CAMERON and JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judges. JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge. In the Employer's petition for review of the findings

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Bldg. Serv. Emp. Int. U. No. 105

    367 F.2d 227 (10th Cir. 1966)   Cited 8 times

    No. 8399. October 11, 1966. Elliott C. Lichtman, Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Glen M. Bendixsen, Washington, D.C., Atty., on the brief), for petitioner. Philip Hornbein, Jr., Denver, Colo. (Roy O. Goldin, Denver, Colo., with him on the brief), for respondent. Before LEWIS, BREITENSTEIN and HICKEY, Circuit Judges. LEWIS, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of

  10. Fruit Vegetable Packers v. N.L.R.B

    308 F.2d 311 (D.C. Cir. 1962)   Cited 11 times

    No. 16588. Argued January 22, 1962. Decided June 7, 1962. Petition for Rehearing Denied October 12, 1962. Mr. David Previant, Milwaukee, Wis., with whom Messrs. Hugh Hafer, Seattle, Wash., and David Leo Uelmen, Milwaukee, Wis., were on the brief, for petitioners. Mr. Melvin J. Welles, Atty., N.L.R.B., of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost