§

Hi-Tech Cable Corp.

318 N.L.R.B. 280 (N.L.R.B. 1995)
Hi-Tech Cable Corp.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.

    369 U.S. 404 (1962)   Cited 298 times
    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"

  2. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 357 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Overnite Transp. Co.

    938 F.2d 815 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that employer engaged in surface bargaining despite the fact employer had attended six bargaining sessions with union, commented on proposals, offered counterproposals, and maintained bargaining stance that had at least some merit, because vice president of employer expressly stated that employer would not sign contract with union, openly threatened to shut down terminal in order to defeat union, and implied that employer would force strike situation and permanently dismiss those employees who left to join picket lines

  4. Pergament United Sales, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 20 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "due process is satisfied when a complaint gives a respondent fair notice . . . and when the conduct implicated in the alleged violation has been fully and fairly litigated"

  5. Inland Tugs v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    918 F.2d 1299 (7th Cir. 1990)   Cited 9 times

    Nos. 89-3395, 89-3688. Argued May 16, 1990. Decided November 26, 1990. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied January 7, 1991. Carol L. VanHal, Vedder, Price, Kaufman Kammholz, Chicago, Ill., David W. Miller, Baker Daniels, Indianapolis, Ind., Vance D. Miller, Lashly, Baer Hamel, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner, cross-respondent. Aileen A. Armstrong, Howard E. Perlstein, Joseph H. Bornong, N.L.R.B., Appellate Court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, D.C., William T. Little, N.L.R.B., Indianapolis

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Limestone Apparel Corp.

    705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1982)   Cited 3 times

    No. 81-1693. October 29, 1982. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Jacob Oliner, Oliner Oliner, New York City, for respondent. Petition to Enforce an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before LIVELY, KRUPANSKY and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges. ORDER This cause comes before the Court upon the motion of the intervenor, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, for an order enforcing the order of the National Labor Relations Board in Limestone

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Jan Power, Inc.

    421 F.2d 1058 (9th Cir. 1970)   Cited 13 times

    No. 24178. January 23, 1970. William H. Carder (argued), Abraham Siegel, John I. Taylor, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for appellant. Julius Reich (argued), of Brundage, Neyhart, Miller, Ross Reich, Levy, DeRoy, Geffner VanBourg, Hill, Farrer Burrill, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees. Before MERRILL and ELY, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE, District Judge. Honorable William M. Byrne, United States Senior District Judge, Central District of California, sitting by

  8. Section 6621 - Determination of rate of interest

    26 U.S.C. § 6621   Cited 1,873 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Applying a higher interest rate to past liabilities resulting from tax-motivated transactions