3 Cited authorities
Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.
370 U.S. 9 (1962) Cited 206 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections
N.L.R.B. v. Solo Cup Company
237 F.2d 521 (8th Cir. 1956) Cited 40 timesNo. 15524. October 18, 1956. Rehearing Denied November 16, 1956. Samuel M. Singer, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were with him on the brief), for petitioner. John J. Hasburgh, Kansas City, Mo. (Carl E. Enggas and Watson S. Marshall Enggas, Kansas City, Mo., were with him on the brief), for respondent. Before WOODROUGH
N.L.R.B. v. Washington Aluminum Company
291 F.2d 869 (4th Cir. 1961) Cited 3 timesNo. 8211. Argued January 11, 1961. Decided June 3, 1961. Samuel M. Singer, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Solomon I. Hirsh, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner. Robert R. Bair, Baltimore, Md. (Venable, Baetjer Howard, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for respondent. Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and