Greentree Electronics Corp.

16 Cited authorities

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,674 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
Edison Co. v. Labor Board
305 U.S. 197 (1938) Cited 19,296 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay
Labor Board v. Columbian Co.
306 U.S. 292 (1939) Cited 994 times
Defining substantial evidence
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
N.L.R.B. v. Billen Shoe Co.
397 F.2d 801 (1st Cir. 1968) Cited 30 times
No. 7062. Heard May 6, 1968. Decided July 2, 1968. Laurence J. Hoffman, Washington, D.C., Atty., with whom Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Gary Green, Washington, D.C., Atty., were on brief, for petitioner. Irving Isaacson, Lewiston, Me., for respondent. Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges. ALDRICH, Chief Judge. This is a petition for enforcement of a Labor Board order. Respondent took
King Radio Corporation v. N.L.R.B
398 F.2d 14 (10th Cir. 1968) Cited 19 times
In King Radio Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 10 Cir., 398 F.2d 14, we enforced a Board award holding Employer guilty of various unfair practices and requiring it to bargain with Union. Over a year later, in 1969, the controversy was back with us.
Schwob Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B
297 F.2d 864 (5th Cir. 1962) Cited 25 times
No. 18819. January 2, 1962. J. Madden Hatcher, Lee H. Henkel, Jr., Swift, Pease, Davidson Chapman, Columbus, Ga., for petitioner. Tom B. Slade, Hatcher, Smith, Stubbs Rothschild, Columbus, Ga., of counsel. Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Melvin Pollack, Atty., Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Judith Bleich Kahn, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before BROWN, GEWIN and BELL, Circuit Judges. GEWIN, Circuit Judge. This case arises
N.L.R.B. v. Mid-States Metal Products, Inc.
403 F.2d 702 (5th Cir. 1968) Cited 17 times
No. 23352. November 13, 1968. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. J.A. Lake, Greenville, Miss., Leonard A. Keller, Detroit, Mich., Warren S. Gritzmacher, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for respondents. Before RIVES, COLEMAN and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges. GODBOLD, Circuit Judge: The NLRB petitions for enforcement of its order, reported at 156 NLRB 90, against Mid-States Metal Products, Inc., and the Chemical Workers Union. The Board found
Martel Mills Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
114 F.2d 624 (4th Cir. 1940) Cited 56 times
In Martel Mills Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 114 F.2d 624, the rules by which we are to be guided in making this determination have been clearly stated by Judge Dobie. As he points out the difficulty is that they are very much simpler to state than to apply.
Lincoln Bearing Company v. N.L.R.B
311 F.2d 48 (6th Cir. 1962) Cited 14 times
In Lincoln Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 311 F.2d 48, 52 (6th Cir. 1962), the court held that in those circumstances the fact that an employer questioned a least one employee as to how the employee was going to vote in the representation election did not amount to a violation of 8(a)(1) of the Act.

Greentree Electronics Corp.

16 Cited authorities

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

Defining substantial evidence

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

In King Radio Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 10 Cir., 398 F.2d 14, we enforced a Board award holding Employer guilty of various unfair practices and requiring it to bargain with Union. Over a year later, in 1969, the controversy was back with us.

In Martel Mills Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 114 F.2d 624, the rules by which we are to be guided in making this determination have been clearly stated by Judge Dobie. As he points out the difficulty is that they are very much simpler to state than to apply.

In Lincoln Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 311 F.2d 48, 52 (6th Cir. 1962), the court held that in those circumstances the fact that an employer questioned a least one employee as to how the employee was going to vote in the representation election did not amount to a violation of 8(a)(1) of the Act.