§

Darlington Veneer Co., Inc.

123 N.L.R.B. 197 (N.L.R.B. 1959)
Darlington Veneer Co., Inc.

5 Cited authorities

  1. Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    321 U.S. 678 (1944)   Cited 269 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8

  2. 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.

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Darlington Veneer

    236 F.2d 85 (4th Cir. 1956)   Cited 16 times

    No. 7194. Argued June 15, 1956. Decided August 20, 1956. Irving M. Herman, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel; David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel; Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Frederick U. Reel, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner. P. Dalton Kennedy, Jr., Charlotte, N.C., for respondent. Before PARKER, Chief Judge, SOPER, Circuit Judge, and BARKSDALE, District Judge. PARKER

  4. Thompson Products v. National Labor Rel. Board

    133 F.2d 637 (6th Cir. 1943)   Cited 20 times

    No. 9427. February 19, 1943. On Petition for Writ of Prohibition. Petition by Thompson Products, Inc., against National Labor Relations Board, for a writ of prohibition prohibiting respondent from holding a hearing under its amended complaint charging the petitioner, its subsidiary, and another with various violations of the National Labor Relations Act, insofar as the complaint alleged a violation of § 8(2) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(2). Rule to show cause discharged, petition dismissed. Eugene

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co.

    196 F.2d 755 (1st Cir. 1952)   Cited 4 times

    No. 3549. March 21, 1952. Winthrop A. Johns, Asst. Gen. Counsel, George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, and Julius G. Serot and Walter N. Moldawer, Attorneys, all of Washington, D.C., on brief, for petitioner. Gerard D. Reilly, Washington, D.C., Julius Kirle and Reilly, Rhetts Ruckelshaus, Washington, D.C., on brief, for respondents. Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges. MAGRUDER, Chief Judge. We have before us a petition