§

Hill-Behan Lumber Co.

162 N.L.R.B. 745 (N.L.R.B. 1967)
Hill-Behan Lumber Co.

25 Cited authorities

  1. I.A. of M. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 72 (1940)   Cited 318 times
    In International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L. Ed. 50, there had been a long history of management favoritism to the established and hostility to the aspiring union; and in Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. 702, 703, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818, 88 L.Ed. 1020, the employer had "conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the union won the election."

  2. H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 514 (1941)   Cited 241 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.

  3. Royal Arcanum v. Green

    237 U.S. 531 (1915)   Cited 142 times
    In Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum v. Samuel Green, 237 U.S. 531, 35 S.Ct. 724, 59 L.Ed. 1089, L.R.A. 1916A, 771, it appeared that the Supreme Council was incorporated under the laws of Massachusetts governing fraternal beneficiary organizations.

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Camco, Incorporated

    340 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1965)   Cited 76 times
    Holding that knowledge of union activities could be inferred from the fact that an employer discharged eleven of sixteen union adherents without discharging any of its remaining seventy-four employees

  5. Price v. United States

    335 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1964)   Cited 69 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing amendments to Rule 12(e) abolishing a party's ability to file a motion for a bill of particulars

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Elliott-Williams Co.

    345 F.2d 460 (7th Cir. 1965)   Cited 33 times
    Striking down as overbroad a portion of an order that enjoined an employer from "in any other manner" interfering with its employees' organizational and bargaining rights

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Delight Bakery, Inc.

    353 F.2d 344 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 25 times

    No. 16091. December 3, 1965. Elliott Moore, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Allen M. Hutter, Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief, for petitioner. Jack R. Clary, Grand Rapids, Mich., Warner, Norcross Judd, by Thomas McNamara, Grand Rapids, Mich., on brief, for respondent. Before EDWARDS and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge. EDWARDS, Circuit

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Economy Food Center, Inc.

    333 F.2d 468 (7th Cir. 1964)   Cited 16 times

    No. 14370. May 22, 1964. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Lee M. Modjeska, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Leo McGuire, Atty., N.L.R.B., for petitioner. Harry P. Dees, Evansville, Ind., Arthur R. Donovan, Joseph A. Yocum, Evansville, Ind., for respondent, Economy Food Center, Inc.; Kahn, Dees, Donovan Kahn, Evansville, Ind., of counsel. Before DUFFY, KNOCH and KILEY, Circuit Judges. KILEY, Circuit Judge. The National

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wallick

    198 F.2d 477 (3d Cir. 1952)   Cited 27 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Wallick, 198 F.2d 477 (3 Cir. 1952), that court sustained a Board order requiring a respondent partnership which operated several enterprises engaged in the manufacture of ladies' garments to either reopen a plant which it had closed in violation of the Act because its employees had organized or give its employees an opportunity to work in other plants operated by the partnership.

  10. Local No. 152 v. N.L.R.B

    343 F.2d 307 (D.C. Cir. 1965)   Cited 13 times
    In Local No. 152 there was evidence (1) that the union honestly but mistakenly believed it represented a majority of the employees in the unit when it sought recognition, and one week thereafter actually attained majority status, (2) the company responded that it was not interested in talking to the union, (3) the company did not in any manner dispute the union's claim of majority representation, (4) the company ignored the union's demand for recognition, and (5) the union petitioned the Board for an election.