20 Cited authorities
Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co.
311 U.S. 584 (1941) Cited 338 timesFinding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"
I.A. of M. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 72 (1940) Cited 317 timesIn International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L. Ed. 50, there had been a long history of management favoritism to the established and hostility to the aspiring union; and in Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. 702, 703, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818, 88 L.Ed. 1020, the employer had "conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the union won the election."
Labor Bd. v. Greyhound Lines
303 U.S. 261 (1938) Cited 264 timesIn National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.
Labor Board v. Newport News Co.
308 U.S. 241 (1939) Cited 119 timesUpholding finding of domination where company determined structure of organization and could choose whether to adopt recommendations
Labor Board v. Southern Bell Co.
319 U.S. 50 (1943) Cited 42 timesIn Seber, the United States Supreme Court addressed a similar statute which provided that certain Indian lands would be immune from state taxes if two requirements were met: that the title to the lands be held by an Indian subject to restrictions against alienation or encumbrance or approval of the Secretary of the Interior; and the lands were purchased out of trust or restricted funds.
Labor Board v. Electric Cleaner Co.
315 U.S. 685 (1942) Cited 39 timesCERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 588. Argued March 5, 1942. Decided March 30, 1942. 1. The finding of the National Labor Relations Board that, by a supplementary oral contract between an employer and a labor union, it was agreed only that new employees would be required to join the union, was supported by substantial evidence. P. 690. 2. The conclusion of the Board that the closed-shop agreement between the employer and a labor union in this case was not valid
Indiana Metal Products v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.
202 F.2d 613 (7th Cir. 1953) Cited 48 timesNo. 10717. March 10, 1953. Edward J. Fahy and Shultz Fahy, Rockford, Ill., for petitioner. David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Atty. National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel and Ruth V. Reel, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before DUFFY, FINNEGAN and LINDLEY, Circuit Judges. DUFFY, Circuit Judge. This is a petition by the Indiana Metal Products Corporation
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Adhesive Products
258 F.2d 403 (2d Cir. 1958) Cited 37 timesIn National Labor Relations Board v. Adhesive Products Corporation, 2 Cir., 258 F.2d 403, the court held that a written statement or memorandum which a witness had made prior to his testifying and from which he had refreshed his recollection should have been produced for the benefit of counsel in cross-examination.
National Labor Rel. Board v. Baldwin L. Works
128 F.2d 39 (3d Cir. 1942) Cited 60 timesModifying and enforced an order by the Board
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Stow Manufacturing Co.
217 F.2d 900 (2d Cir. 1954) Cited 31 timesNo. 74, Docket 23104. Argued October 6, 1954. Decided December 7, 1954. Fannie M. Boyls, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Jean Engstrom, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, for petitioner. George C. Coughlin, Harrison, Coughlin, Dermody Ingalls, Binghamton, N.Y., for respondent. Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and L. HAND and FRANK, Circuit Judges. L. HAND,