§

Ford Brothers, Inc.

284 N.L.R.B. 211 (N.L.R.B. 1987)
Ford Brothers, Inc.

5 Cited authorities

  1. Marlene Industries Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    712 F.2d 1011 (6th Cir. 1983)   Cited 36 times
    In Marlene Industries Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 712 F.2d 1011 (6th Cir. 1983), this Court stated: "[w]e are mindful of the admonishment that 'neither collateral estoppel nor res judicata is rigidly applied.

  2. N.L.R.B. v. Brown Root, Inc.

    311 F.2d 447 (8th Cir. 1963)   Cited 71 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Brown Root, Inc., 311 F.2d 447, 454 (C.A. 8), it is said that "in a back pay proceeding the burden is upon the General Counsel to show the gross amounts of back pay due.

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Master Slack and/or Master Trousers Corp.

    773 F.2d 77 (6th Cir. 1985)   Cited 30 times

    No. 84-5387. Argued April 4, 1985. Decided September 17, 1985. Elliott Moore, W. Christian Schumann, Michael David Fox, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., National Labor Relations Board, Margaret Bezou, argued, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Thomas J. Hughes, Jr. (argued), Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler Krupman, Ann Bachman Hale, Atlanta, Ga., for respondents. Petition for the National Labor Relations Board. Before KEITH and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges, and COHN, District Judge. The Honorable

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Company

    360 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. 1966)   Cited 51 times
    Permitting "non-deduction of supplemental earnings . . . where an employee who had spare-time earnings prior to discharge from his regular job continued in the same spare-time job during his period of discharge," and further holding that as long as employee was "moonlighting before his unlawful discharge," amounts earned in any "spare time employment" should not be used to reduce back-pay award

  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