§

Glass Workers Union Local No. 1220

162 N.L.R.B. 168 (N.L.R.B. 1966)
Glass Workers Union Local No. 1220

8 Cited authorities

  1. Standard Oil Company v. N.L.R.B

    322 F.2d 40 (6th Cir. 1963)   Cited 22 times
    In Standard Oil Co. v. NLRB, 322 F.2d 40 (6th Cir. 1963), four oil refineries of the same company constituted separate bargaining units; one was represented by an international union and the other three by locals thereof.

  2. Cleveland Orchestra v. Cleveland Musicians

    303 F.2d 229 (6th Cir. 1962)   Cited 23 times

    No. 14613. April 30, 1962. Joseph E. Finley, Cleveland, Ohio, (Charles R. Miller, Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellants. Mortimer Riemer, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee. Before MILLER, Chief Judge, and McALLISTER and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. McALLISTER, Circuit Judge. Appellants are, and represent, musicians employed in the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra, by the Musical Arts Association. They are also members of the musicians' union, Cleveland Local No. 4 of the American Federation of Musicians

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Huttig Sash and Door Company

    362 F.2d 217 (4th Cir. 1966)   Cited 8 times
    In Huttig we found that the granting of six per cent interest by the Board was not an abuse of its discretion, and we now reaffirm this holding.

  4. Nelson v. Victory Electric Works, Inc.

    227 F. Supp. 404 (D. Md. 1964)   Cited 7 times

    Civ. A. No. 13716. March 10, 1964. I. Irwin Bolotin and Philip J. Lesser, Lesser Lesser, Kensington, Md., for plaintiffs. John A. Beck and John J. Pyne, Bethesda, Md., for defendants. R. DORSEY WATKINS, District Judge. This is a suit by the plaintiffs (hereinafter Nelson and Smith) against the defendant, their employer (hereinafter Victory) to recover moneys allegedly due and to become due under the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement entered into on June 25, 1959 between United Brotherhood

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, & Paperhangers of America

    334 F.2d 729 (7th Cir. 1964)   Cited 4 times

    No. 14487. June 30, 1964. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, George B. Driesen, Atty., N.L.R.B., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Lee M. Modjeska, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Sydney L. Berger, Evansville, Ind., for respondent. Before CASTLE, KILEY and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges. CASTLE, Circuit Judge. This case is before the Court upon the petition of the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to Section 10(e) of the National Labor

  6. McLeod v. Local 27, Paper Products Misc. Chauffeurs

    212 F. Supp. 57 (E.D.N.Y. 1962)   Cited 5 times

    No. 62 C 1286. December 3, 1962. Jacques Schurre, New York City, for petitioner. Cohen Weiss, New York City, for respondent, by Samuel J. Cohen, New York City. Alan Perl, New York City, for Local 381. Poletti Freidin, Prashker Harnett, New York City, for charging party, by Jesse Freidin, New York City (Murray Gartner, Richard H. Borow, New York City, on the brief). ZAVATT, Chief Judge. This is a petition by the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to Section 10 (l) of

  7. National Labor Rel. Board v. Acme Mattress Co.

    192 F.2d 524 (7th Cir. 1951)   Cited 13 times

    No. 10441. November 7, 1951. George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, and A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Gerald F. Krassa, Washington, D.C., National Labor Relations Board. Isadore Katz, David Jaffe, New York City, for respondent. Before KERNER, FINNEGAN and LINDLEY, Circuit Judges. FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge. This is a petition by the National Labor Relations Board for the enforcement of an order entered on October 18, 1950, against respondents

  8. Capitol Airways, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Internat'l

    223 F. Supp. 168 (M.D. Tenn. 1961)   Cited 1 times

    Civ. A. No. 2961. January 20, 1961. Judson Harwood, Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiff. Cecil Branstetter, Nashville, Tenn., for defendant. WILLIAM E. MILLER, Chief Judge. This cause was heretofore submitted to the Court upon the original and amended complaints and motions of both parties for summary judgment. The Court having doubts as to federal jurisdiction, and in order to afford the parties an opportunity to further clarify their positions with respect to the jurisdictional questions, requested