Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.

23 Cited authorities

Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board
313 U.S. 177 (1941) Cited 871 times
Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”
Labor Board v. Seven-Up Co.
344 U.S. 344 (1953) Cited 368 times
Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding
Board of Comm'rs v. U.S.
308 U.S. 343 (1939) Cited 418 times
Holding that when interpreting a federal statute, state law may be borrowed only if it effectuates federal policy
Nathanson v. Labor Board
344 U.S. 25 (1952) Cited 279 times
Holding that "if one claimant is to be preferred over others, the purpose should be clear from the statute"
Social Security Board v. Nierotko
327 U.S. 358 (1946) Cited 289 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that a back pay award under the National Labor Relations Act should be treated as "wages" for purposes of the Social Security Act
Labor Board v. Gullett Gin Co.
340 U.S. 361 (1951) Cited 211 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding unemployment compensation payments not deductible from back pay award under the National Labor Relations Act
Texas N.O.R. Co. v. Ry. Clerks
281 U.S. 548 (1930) Cited 381 times
Finding provision in Railway Labor Act stating that employees' right to designate representatives without interference, influence, or coercion did not violate employer's right to freedom of association
Rodgers v. United States
332 U.S. 371 (1947) Cited 214 times
Holding that when a federal statute is silent as to prejudgment interest, the court should fashion a federal rule which grants or denies prejudgment interest based on the congressional purpose of the particular statute
Labor Bd. v. Greyhound Lines
303 U.S. 261 (1938) Cited 264 times
In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.
Republic Steel Corp. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 7 (1940) Cited 231 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Republic Steel, supra, the Court refused to enforce an order requiring the employer to pay the full amount of back pay to an employee who had been paid to work for the Work Projects Administration in the meantime.

Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.

23 Cited authorities

Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding

Holding that when interpreting a federal statute, state law may be borrowed only if it effectuates federal policy

Holding that "if one claimant is to be preferred over others, the purpose should be clear from the statute"

Holding that a back pay award under the National Labor Relations Act should be treated as "wages" for purposes of the Social Security Act

Holding unemployment compensation payments not deductible from back pay award under the National Labor Relations Act

Finding provision in Railway Labor Act stating that employees' right to designate representatives without interference, influence, or coercion did not violate employer's right to freedom of association

Holding that when a federal statute is silent as to prejudgment interest, the court should fashion a federal rule which grants or denies prejudgment interest based on the congressional purpose of the particular statute

In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.

In Republic Steel, supra, the Court refused to enforce an order requiring the employer to pay the full amount of back pay to an employee who had been paid to work for the Work Projects Administration in the meantime.