§

Collins Mining Co.

177 N.L.R.B. 221 (N.L.R.B. 1969)
Collins Mining Co.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wyman-Gordon Co.

    394 U.S. 759 (1969)   Cited 813 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding invalid a legislative rule developed in agency adjudication

  2. Labor Board v. Parts Co.

    375 U.S. 405 (1964)   Cited 213 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Cumberland Shoe Corporation

    351 F.2d 917 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 49 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Cumberland we emphasized that "In no instance did any employee testify that he was told that the election was the only purpose of the card."

  4. International Un., United A., A. v. N.L.R.B

    363 F.2d 702 (D.C. Cir. 1966)   Cited 34 times
    Rejecting argument NLRB used section 8(c) protected statements as "as some evidence of the unfair labor practices themselves" and concluding statements were used only to "place . . . other acts in context"

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Clement Brothers Company

    407 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1969)   Cited 27 times

    No. 25319. February 12, 1969. Rehearing Denied July 17, 1969. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, John I. Taylor, Michael N. Sohn, Linda Sher, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Harry L. Griffin, Jr., Overton A. Currie, William T. Wood, Smith, Currie Hancock, Atlanta, Ga., for Clement Brothers Co., Inc., Mark G. Kaplan, Boston, Mass., Angoff, Goldman, Manning Pyle, Boston, Mass., for International Union

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Ralph Printing Lithographing Co.

    379 F.2d 687 (8th Cir. 1967)   Cited 28 times
    Recognizing that unfair labor practices claim against employer was subject to "the de minimis rule"

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Heck's Inc.

    386 F.2d 317 (4th Cir. 1967)   Cited 23 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Heck's, Inc., 386 F.2d 317, 322 (4th Cir. 1967), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals explained the rationale behind not allowing "supervisors" to solicit signatures on union authorization cards.

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Louisville Chair Company

    385 F.2d 922 (6th Cir. 1967)   Cited 21 times

    No. 17803. December 1, 1967. George B. Driesen, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner, Arnold Ordman. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, J. Richard Theising, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief. Martin Raphael, New York City, for intervenor. James U. Smith, Jr., Louisville, Ky., for respondent, Louis E. Woolery, Louisville, Ky., Stuart Rothman, Washington, D.C., on the brief, Smith Smith, Louisville, Ky., Royall, Koegel

  9. Textile Workers Union of America v. N.L.R.B

    388 F.2d 896 (2d Cir. 1967)   Cited 19 times
    Rejecting the imprimatur idea

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Bangor Plastics, Inc.

    392 F.2d 772 (6th Cir. 1967)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Bangor, the Company merely gave administrative reasons why it had accepted the settlement, such reasons having little if any effect on the substantive portion of the agreement.

  11. Section 3500 - Demands for production of statements and reports of witnesses

    18 U.S.C. § 3500   Cited 5,500 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Requiring the government to produce "any statement," including testimony provided before the grand jury, only after the witness has testified on direct examination at trial