Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.

Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. McGahey

In N.L.R.B. v. McGahey, 233 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1956), this court described casual and moderate inquiries, even as to union preference, absent evidence indicating that the employee has reason to consider the inquiries a threat of reprisals, as not constituting an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8(a)(1).

N.L.R.B. v. Broyhill Company

In Broyhill, the Eighth Circuit found that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that McWilliams was a supervisor.

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

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.

Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp.

In Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp. 267 Mass. 501, 516, the court said: "A violation of a statute, ordinance or regulation, although not conclusive, is evidence of negligence on the part of a violator as to all consequences that the statute, ordinance or regulation was intended to prevent."

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

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.

N.L.R.B. v. Joseph Antell, Inc.

In Antell, the court stated that the smallness of a plant, or a staff, may be material as bearing on the knowledge on the part of the employer of an employee's union activities, but only to the extent that it may be shown to have made it likely that the employer observed, or otherwise learned about the activity in question.

N.L.R.B. v. Lexington Chair Company

N.L.R.B. v. Longhorn Transfer Service, Inc.

Majestic Molded Products, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

In Majestic Molded Products, Inc., v. N.L.R.B., (2 Cir. 1964) 330 F.2d 603, 606, the layoffs were also in order of seniority.