D & D Transportation Co.

26 Cited authorities

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,687 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
  2. United States v. Silk

    331 U.S. 704 (1947)   Cited 541 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that truck drivers who owned their own trucks and hired their own helpers were "small businessmen" who were properly classified as independent contractors
  3. 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"
  4. Labor Board v. Tower Co.

    329 U.S. 324 (1946)   Cited 260 times
    Describing the Board's goals for its election rules and regulations
  5. Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    321 U.S. 678 (1944)   Cited 270 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate ยง 8
  6. 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"
  7. United States v. Moorman

    338 U.S. 457 (1950)   Cited 102 times
    Holding that Secretary of War's resolution of a government construction contract dispute was binding
  8. Labor Board v. Crompton Mills

    337 U.S. 217 (1949)   Cited 102 times
    Holding unlawful unilateral changes significantly different from "any which the employer has proposed" during bargaining
  9. Labor Board v. Pittsburgh S.S. Co.

    337 U.S. 656 (1949)   Cited 88 times
    Holding "total rejection of an opposed view cannot of itself impugn the integrity or competence of a trier of fact"
  10. Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board

    185 F.2d 732 (D.C. Cir. 1950)   Cited 162 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Joy Silk the Court held that when an employer could have no doubt as to the majority status or when an employer refuses recognition of a union "due to a desire to gain time and to take action to dissipate the union's majority, the refusal is no longer justifiable and constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain set forth in section 8(a)(5) of the Act".