§
Cascade Corp.

4 Cited authorities

  1. N.L.R.B. v. Smith Industries, Inc.

    403 F.2d 889 (5th Cir. 1968)   Cited 82 times

    No. 25691. November 12, 1968. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, William Wachter, William H. Carder, Abigail Baskier, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Louis B. Paine, Jr., Houston, Tex., Thomas R. Beech, Washington, D.C., for respondent; Butler, Binion, Rice, Cook Knapp, Houston, Tex., of counsel. Before GOLDBERG and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges, and SPEARS, District Judge. AINSWORTH, Circuit Judge: The

  2. International U., E., R. M.W. v. N.L.R.B

    426 F.2d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1970)   Cited 73 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Tiidee Products, Inc., 138 U.S.App.D.C. 249, 426 F.2d 1243 (1970), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia remanded the case to the Board to ascertain whether the bargaining order which the Board had ordered was sufficient to make amends for the Company's failure to bargain earlier, and the Court directed the Board to order monetary relief if on remand it concluded that the bargaining order was not, by itself, a sufficient remedy.

  3. International Union, U.A.W. v. N.L.R.B

    449 F.2d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 1971)   Cited 31 times

    Nos. 24577, 24715. Argued December 3, 1970. Decided March 19, 1971. Mr. John Silard, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D.C., and Stephen I. Schlossberg, Detroit, Mich., were on the motion for summary reversal by petitioner in number 24,577. Mr. Warren M. Davison, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Assistant General Counsel, was on the motion for temporary relief by respondent in number 24,715, and on respondent's opposition to the motion for

  4. 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.