§

Keeshin Charter Service, Inc.

250 N.L.R.B. 780 (N.L.R.B. 1980)
Keeshin Charter Service, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,035 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  2. 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

  3. Interstate Circuit v. U.S.

    306 U.S. 208 (1939)   Cited 512 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding proof of an explicit agreement unnecessary to establish antitrust conspiracy among movie distributors where, "knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it"

  4. Mohan v. Kerr

    400 U.S. 833 (1970)   Cited 97 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion in district court's denial of a jury request made eighteen months after removal and some two months before trial

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Staiman Brothers

    466 F.2d 564 (3d Cir. 1972)   Cited 51 times

    No. 71-2089. Argued June 15, 1972. Decided August 15, 1972. William L. Corbett, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Atty., N.L.R.B., for National Labor Relations Board. William R. Tait, Jr., McNerney, Page, Vanderlin Hall, O. William Vanderlin, Williamsport, Pa., for Staiman Brothers. Before STALEY, VAN DUSEN and ADAMS, Circuit Judges. OPINION OF THE COURT STALEY, Circuit Judge. This matter comes

  6. Satra Belarus, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    568 F.2d 545 (7th Cir. 1978)   Cited 10 times
    In Satra Belarus, Inc., supra, this court noted several factors that are relevant to a determination of whether an interrogation is coercive: (1) the background of employer-employee-union relations; (2) the nature of the information sought; (3) the questioner's identity; (4) the place and method of interrogation; and (5) the truthfulness of the reply.

  7. P.R. Mallory Co. v. N.L.R.B

    400 F.2d 956 (7th Cir. 1968)   Cited 19 times
    In P.R. Mallory Co., supra, for example, the defendant had failed to have an employee and participant in the transaction testify as to his personal knowledge.

  8. Borek Motor Sales, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    425 F.2d 677 (7th Cir. 1970)   Cited 17 times
    In Borek Motor Sales, Inc. v. NLRB, 425 F.2d 677, 681 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 823, 91 S.Ct. 45, 27 L.Ed.2d 52 (1970), cited by the Board, this court found the evidence "less than convincing" that the employee's job performance was unsatisfactory.

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Pacific Gamble Robinson Co.

    438 F.2d 112 (9th Cir. 1971)   Cited 6 times

    No. 24954. January 8, 1971. Marcel Mallet-Prevost (argued), Asst. Gen. Counsel, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., Charles Henderson, Director, N.L.R.B., Seattle, Wash., for petitioner. John E. Iverson (argued), of Ryan, Carlson, Bush, Swanson Hendel, Seattle, Wash., for respondent. Before BROWNING, ELY, and CARTER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The Petitioner seeks enforcement of an order which it issued against the Respondent (hereinafter "Pacific")

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Kalof Pulp Paper Corporation

    290 F.2d 447 (9th Cir. 1961)   Cited 1 times

    No. 16903. April 3, 1961. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Samuel M. Singer and William J. Avrutis, Attys., N.L.R.B., for petitioner. Max Bernbaum, Beverly Hills, Cal., and Gordon B. Severance, Monterey Park, Cal., for respondent Company. Warren Woods and Wilson, Woods Villalon, Washington, D.C., for respondent unions. Before BARNES, HAMLEY and MERRILL, Circuit Judges. MERRILL, Circuit Judge. This case is before us