§

Houchens Market of Elizabethtown, Inc.

155 N.L.R.B. 729 (N.L.R.B. 1965)
Houchens Market of Elizabethtown, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.

    356 U.S. 342 (1958)   Cited 296 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."

  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. Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp.

    167 N.E. 235 (Mass. 1929)   Cited 113 times
    In Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp. 267 Mass. 501, 516, the court said: "A violation of a statute, ordinance or regulation, although not conclusive, is evidence of negligence on the part of a violator as to all consequences that the statute, ordinance or regulation was intended to prevent."

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company

    326 F.2d 509 (6th Cir. 1964)   Cited 22 times

    Nos. 15014, 15015. January 14, 1964. Stephen B. Goldberg, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Melvin J. Welles, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Frank A. Constangy, Atlanta, Ga. (Constangy Prowell, Atlanta, Ga., William E. Boston, Lawrenceburg, Tenn., on the brief), for respondent. Before WEICK and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges, and BOYD, District Judge

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Audio Industries, Inc.

    313 F.2d 858 (7th Cir. 1963)   Cited 14 times

    No. 13783. January 17, 1963. Rehearing Denied March 13, 1963. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Lee M. Modjeska, Atty., Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Solomon I. Hirsh, Harold B. Shore, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Sheldon M. Charone, Walter L. Adams, Chicago, Ill., Warren J. Rommes, Michigan City, Ind., Henry E. Seyfarth, Harvey M. Adelstein, Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather Geraldson, Chicago, Ill., for

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Darlington Veneer

    236 F.2d 85 (4th Cir. 1956)   Cited 16 times

    No. 7194. Argued June 15, 1956. Decided August 20, 1956. Irving M. Herman, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel; David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel; Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Frederick U. Reel, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner. P. Dalton Kennedy, Jr., Charlotte, N.C., for respondent. Before PARKER, Chief Judge, SOPER, Circuit Judge, and BARKSDALE, District Judge. PARKER

  7. Rubin Bros. Footwear v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    203 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1953)   Cited 17 times
    In Rubin Bros. Footwear v. National Labor Relations Bd., 203 F.2d 486 (C.C.A. 5th), the Court said: "If anything is settled in labor law and under the act, we think it is that membership in a union does not guarantee the member against a discharge as such. It affords protection against discharge only where it is established that the discharge is because of union activity."