§

Farrand Park Services

276 N.L.R.B. 861 (N.L.R.B. 1985)
Farrand Park Services

5 Cited authorities

  1. South Prairie Constr. v. Operating Engineers

    425 U.S. 800 (1976)   Cited 222 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appeals court usurped role of NLRB by reversing Board's legal conclusion and proceeding to decide issue of fact that should be decided by Board in the first instance

  2. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 357 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Don Burgess Const. Corp.

    596 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1979)   Cited 101 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that section 10(b) limitations period begins to run when the employee "discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the acts constituting the alleged [violation]"

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.

    322 F.2d 913 (9th Cir. 1963)   Cited 18 times

    No. 18364. September 23, 1963. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Melvin J. Welles and Paula Omansky, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Hill, Farrer Burrill, Carl M. Gould and Stanley E. Tobin, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Before HAMLEY, JERTBERG and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges. JERTBERG, Circuit Judge. This case is before the court on the petition of the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second