§

Evans Orchard Supply Co.

166 N.L.R.B. 243 (N.L.R.B. 1967)
Evans Orchard Supply Co.

19 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Seven-Up Co.

    344 U.S. 344 (1953)   Cited 368 times
    Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding

  2. N.L.R.B. v. Camco, Incorporated

    340 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1965)   Cited 76 times
    Holding that knowledge of union activities could be inferred from the fact that an employer discharged eleven of sixteen union adherents without discharging any of its remaining seventy-four employees

  3. Surprenant Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B

    341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 60 times
    In Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965) this Court approved as non-threatening, language of the employer which was much stronger than that used in the present case.

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Griggs Equipment, Inc.

    307 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1962)   Cited 52 times
    In Griggs, the issue was not even mentioned in the Board's Decision, but is noted in the decision of the court of appeals.

  5. Philip Carey Mfg., v. N.L.R.B

    331 F.2d 720 (6th Cir. 1964)   Cited 42 times

    Nos. 15289, 15330. March 31, 1964. J. Mack Swigert, Cincinnati, Ohio, Frank H. Stewart, Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief; E.J. Fasold, Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel, for Philip Carey Mfg. Co. Lowell Goerlich, Washington, D.C., for International Union, etc. William J. Avrutis, Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief, for N.L.R.B. Before

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Whitin Mach. Works

    204 F.2d 883 (1st Cir. 1953)   Cited 57 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Whitin Machine Works, 204 F.2d 883 (1st Cir.1953), for example, an assistant supervisor in his employer's accounting department was, upon a consideration of the nature of his work, determined not to be a supervisor for purposes of litigating his discharge from employment, and, therefore, he was entitled to the protections of the National Labor Relations Act. 204 F.2d at 886.

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Melrose Processing Co.

    351 F.2d 693 (8th Cir. 1965)   Cited 33 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Melrose Processing Co., 8 Cir., 351 F.2d 693, also decided since this case was submitted, this court stated that if the factual conclusion of the Board is based upon substantial evidence on the whole record, this court must accept such factual determination as binding. Jas. H. Matthews Co. v. N.L.R.B., 8 Cir., 354 F.2d 432, decided December 29, 1965, adheres to these principles.

  8. Wirtz v. B.A.C. Steel Products, Inc.

    312 F.2d 14 (4th Cir. 1962)   Cited 29 times
    In B.A.C., the Secretary supplied the exact information here requested by defendant, and if plaintiff will just do what Secretary Wirtz did voluntarily in B.A.C., defendant will have the information it wants.

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. S. Bleachery

    257 F.2d 235 (4th Cir. 1958)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the essential inquiry is whether the employer shares the power of management

  10. Precision Fabricators v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    204 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1953)   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 271, Docket 22653. Argued May 13, 1953. Decided June 22, 1953. Nixon, Hargrave, Devans Dey, Rochester, N.Y., Arthur L. Stern and William B. Lee, Jr., Rochester, N.Y., of counsel, for petitioner. George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel; Samuel M. Singer and Melvin Spaeth, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before SWAN, Chief Judge, and L. HAND and FRANK, Circuit Judges. SWAN, Chief Judge. This is a petition by an employer to