Huttig Sash & Door Co., Inc.

15 Cited authorities

  1. May Stores Co. v. Labor Board

    326 U.S. 376 (1945)   Cited 257 times
    Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"
  2. Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board

    185 F.2d 732 (D.C. Cir. 1950)   Cited 162 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Joy Silk the Court held that when an employer could have no doubt as to the majority status or when an employer refuses recognition of a union "due to a desire to gain time and to take action to dissipate the union's majority, the refusal is no longer justifiable and constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain set forth in section 8(a)(5) of the Act".
  3. Tenney Eng'g v. United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of Am.

    207 F.2d 450 (3d Cir. 1953)   Cited 117 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that employees engaged in the production of goods for subsequent sale in interstate commerce were not a class of workers engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the exemption
  4. Local 205, Etc. v. General Electric Company

    233 F.2d 85 (1st Cir. 1956)   Cited 99 times
    Holding that "[a]ny controversy between an employer and a union concerning terms or conditions of employment" is a labor dispute within the meaning of the Act
  5. Deaton Truck Line, Inc. v. Local Union 612

    314 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1963)   Cited 78 times
    Holding contract using "may" clearly gave either party the right to compel arbitration
  6. Texas Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    336 F.2d 128 (5th Cir. 1964)   Cited 64 times
    In Texas Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 336 F.2d 128 (5 Cir. 1964), the court held that charges filed by the Union that alleged generally that the company had "engaged in * * * unfair labor practices within the meaning of" Section 8(a)(1) and (3), and then alleged specifically various acts of coercion against a named employee was sufficient to include unfair labor practices by the company against other employees which were not mentioned in the charges.
  7. Surprenant Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B

    341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 60 times
    In Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965) this Court approved as non-threatening, language of the employer which was much stronger than that used in the present case.
  8. Textile Workers Union v. American Thread Co.

    113 F. Supp. 137 (D. Mass. 1953)   Cited 57 times

    Civ. A. No. 52-503. June 5, 1953. Jacob Minkin, New Bedford, Mass., for plaintiff. Francis J. Vaas, A. Lane McGovern and Ropes, Gray, Best, Coolidge Rugg, Boston, Mass., for defendant. WYZANSKI, District Judge. This is a suit under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, commonly called the Taft-Hartley Act, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185, to order defendant to submit to arbitration the question whether under certain provisions of a collective bargaining contract with plaintiff it is

  9. Hoover Motor Express Co. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 327

    217 F.2d 49 (6th Cir. 1954)   Cited 33 times
    In Hoover Motor Express Co. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 327, 217 F.2d 49 (6th Cir. 1954), this Court explicitly held that, despite the provision excepting employment contracts from the Act, it did apply to collective bargaining agreements.
  10. Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co. v. Local Lodge No. 1717, International Ass'n of Machinists

    299 F.2d 882 (3d Cir. 1962)   Cited 23 times

    No. 13654. Argued December 8, 1961. Decided February 14, 1962. Richard H. Markowitz, Philadelphia, Pa. (Wilderman, Markowitz Kirschner, Paula R. Markowitz, Richard Kirschner, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants. Robert W. Lees, Philadelphia, Pa. (John F.E. Hippel, Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell Hippel, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee. Before GOODRICH, STALEY and GANEY, Circuit Judges. STALEY, Circuit Judge. The narrow question on this appeal is whether an employer can bring