Crompton-Higlhland Mills, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Laughlin
301 U.S. 1 (1937) Cited 1,498 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis
Steele v. L. N.R. Co.
323 U.S. 192 (1944) Cited 959 times
Holding that a labor organization must represent all members of a "craft or class of employees . . . regardless of their union affiliations or want of them"
Labor Board v. Columbian Co.
306 U.S. 292 (1939) Cited 994 times
Defining substantial evidence
Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.
312 U.S. 426 (1941) Cited 505 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"
Tunstall v. Brotherhood
323 U.S. 210 (1944) Cited 286 times
In Tunstall v. Brotherhood, 323 U.S. 210, the federal right was derived from the federal duty of the union to act as bargaining representative for all members of the union.
May Stores Co. v. Labor Board
326 U.S. 376 (1945) Cited 257 times
Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"
Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board
321 U.S. 702 (1944) Cited 252 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.
Wallace Corp. v. Labor Board
323 U.S. 248 (1944) Cited 162 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that corporation committed unfair labor practice

Crompton-Higlhland Mills, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis

Holding that a labor organization must represent all members of a "craft or class of employees . . . regardless of their union affiliations or want of them"

Defining substantial evidence

Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"

In Tunstall v. Brotherhood, 323 U.S. 210, the federal right was derived from the federal duty of the union to act as bargaining representative for all members of the union.

Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"

Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.

Holding that corporation committed unfair labor practice