§
Eldeco, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Precision Window Mfg., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    963 F.2d 1105 (8th Cir. 1992)   Cited 17 times
    Finding provocation where an employee yelled obscenities at a party immediately after being terminated

  2. Justak Bros. and Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    664 F.2d 1074 (7th Cir. 1981)   Cited 29 times
    Disallowing an employer to seize upon turnover, for otherwise "an employer could engage in a scheme of unfair labor practices and yet escape a bargaining order by delaying and waiting for employee turnover"

  3. Ultrasystems Western v. N.L.R.B

    18 F.3d 251 (4th Cir. 1994)   Cited 14 times
    Discussing the distinction the NLRB draws between these two concepts

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Adam & Eve Cosmetics, Inc.

    567 F.2d 723 (7th Cir. 1977)   Cited 30 times
    Overturning the Board's determination that a worker was not a supervisor, reasoning: "That the choices [the worker] had in assigning and directing work were severely circumscribed by the menial nature of the tasks performed and the limited skills of his coworkers . . . does not mean that [he] was not called upon to use his own judgment in the course of the job."

  5. Willmar Elec. Service, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    968 F.2d 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1992)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that paid union organizers are employees within the meaning of the Act, but noting that "we are ready to assume arguendo that Willmar made out so powerful a case of likely disloyalty that the Board would have had to conclude that rejection of Hendrix's application on that ground would have been legitimate and not in violation of the anti-discrimination and anti-coercion provisions of the Act."

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Elias Brothers Big Boy, Inc.

    327 F.2d 421 (6th Cir. 1964)   Cited 38 times
    Reversing credibility finding where examiner "credited the testimony of a highly prejudiced and interested witness and discredited the testimony of all witnesses to the contrary"

  7. Town Country Elec., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    34 F.3d 625 (8th Cir. 1994)   Cited 4 times

    Nos. 92-3911, 93-1218. Submitted October 11, 1993. Decided August 31, 1994. James K. Pease, Jr., Madison, WI, argued (James K. Pease, Jr. and Douglas E. Witt, on the brief), for petitioner/cross-respondent. Marilyn O'Rourke, Washington, DC, argued (Frederick C. Havard and Marilyn O'Rourke, and Gen. counsel Jerry M. Hunter, Yvonne T. Dixon, Nicholas E. Karatinos and Aileen A. Armstrong, on the brief), for respondent/cross-petitioner, NLRB. Stephen D. Gordon, Minneapolis, MN, argued (Stephen D. Gordon

  8. H.B. Zachry Co. v. N.L.R.B

    886 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1989)   Cited 8 times
    In H.B. Zachry Co. v. NLRB, 886 F.2d 70, 72 (4th Cir. 1989), the Fourth Circuit, joining the Sixth Circuit, NLRB v. Elias Brothers Big Boy, Inc., 327 F.2d 421, 427 (6th Cir. 1964), held that a union organizer is not a bona fide employee within the meaning of section 2(3). Zachry had refused to hire a paid full-time union organizer who had applied for work, upon the union's instruction, to organize Zachry's employees. Had the organizer been hired, he would have remained concurrently employed and supervised by the union.

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Shawnee Industries, Inc.

    333 F.2d 221 (10th Cir. 1964)   Cited 23 times
    Holding promulgation of an overly broad rule without enforcement not illegal under the special circumstances presented

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Dadco Fashions, Inc.

    632 F.2d 493 (5th Cir. 1980)   Cited 6 times

    No. 79-3515. December 10, 1980. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington D.C., Carol A. De Deo, Penny Pilzer, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Kullman, Lang, Inman Bee, Ernest R. Malone, Jr., Michael S. Mitchell, New Orleans, La., for respondent. Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before WISDOM, AINSWORTH and GEE, Circuit Judges. AINSWORTH, Circuit Judge: The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order requiring

  11. Section 6621 - Determination of rate of interest

    26 U.S.C. § 6621   Cited 1,907 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Applying a higher interest rate to past liabilities resulting from tax-motivated transactions