6 Cited authorities
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
Oil City Brass Works v. N.L.R.B
357 F.2d 466 (5th Cir. 1966) Cited 36 timesNo. 21755. February 8, 1966. John H. Benckenstein, Beaumont, Tex., for petitioner. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Paul J. Spielberg, Atty., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Melvin Pollack, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before RIVES, WISDOM and GEWIN, Circuit Judges. RIVES, Circuit Judge: Oil City Brass Works petitioned this Court to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board issued against it. The Board
N.L.R.B. v. Ambox, Incorporated
357 F.2d 138 (5th Cir. 1966) Cited 20 timesIn N.L.R.B. v. Ambox, Inc., 357 F.2d 138 (5 Cir. 1966), both the attorney for the employer and the president of the Company were guilty of coercive measures in their attempts to obtain copies of statements made to Board investigators.
John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. v. N.L.R.B
191 F.2d 483 (D.C. Cir. 1951) Cited 30 timesNo. 10863. Argued May 10, 1951. Decided July 5, 1951. John E. Powell, Washington, D.C., with whom Arthur P. Drury and John M. Lynham, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for petitioner. Dominick L. Manoli, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., with whom A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for respondent. Before CLARK, PROCTOR and BAZELON, Circuit Judges. BAZELON, Circuit Judge. Samuel Kohen was employed as an
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Aluminum Products Co.
120 F.2d 567 (7th Cir. 1941) Cited 14 timesIn National Labor Relations Board v. Aluminum Products Co., 120 F.2d 567, page 573, the issue of laches by the Board in seeking an enforcement order was answered by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by the terse statement: "But we do not understand that orders lose their validity or cease dynamic existence merely because the Board delays in seeking an enforcement order. From the time of its entry, it was binding upon respondents. If they believed it should not be enforced, they had the right to assert such belief in a proper proceeding."
Section 206 - Minimum wage
29 U.S.C. § 206 Cited 9,057 times 101 Legal AnalysesAsking only whether the alleged inequality resulted from “any other factor other than sex”