§

Ken's Building Supplies

142 N.L.R.B. 235 (N.L.R.B. 1963)
Ken's Building Supplies

10 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 710 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

  2. Brooks v. Labor Board

    348 U.S. 96 (1954)   Cited 300 times
    Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board

  3. Northern Securities Co. v. United States

    193 U.S. 197 (1904)   Cited 443 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding illegal an apparently permanent profit pooling arrangement

  4. Feldmann v. Perlman

    349 U.S. 952 (1955)   Cited 89 times

    C.A.2d Circuit. No. 743. June 6, 1955. Arthur H. Dean and Howard T. Milman for petitioners. Eugene Eisenmann and William E. Haudek for respondents. Reported below: 219 F.2d 173. Certiorari denied.

  5. N.L.R.B. v. U.S. Sonics Corp.

    312 F.2d 610 (1st Cir. 1963)   Cited 20 times

    No. 6000. January 31, 1963. Ira M. Lechner, Atty., with whom Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Warren M. Davison, Atty., Washington, D.C., were on brief, for petitioner. Jerome Medalie, Boston, Mass., with whom Michael H. Goshko and Cohn, Riemer Pollack, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for respondent. Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges. HARTIGAN, Circuit Judge. This is a petition

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Universal Camera

    179 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1950)   Cited 24 times

    No. 54, Docket 21395. Argued December 6, 1949. Decided January 10, 1950. A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ruth Weyand, Asst. Gen. Counsel, William J. Avrutis, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman Hays, New York City, Frederick R. Livingston, New York City, for respondent. On petition of the National Labor Relations Board for an order, "enforcing" an order of the Board to "cease

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Shannon

    208 F.2d 545 (9th Cir. 1953)   Cited 18 times

    No. 13644. December 14, 1953. George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Owsley Vose, Rose Mary Filipowicz, Washington, D.C., Charles K. Hackler, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. James S. Duberg, Holmes E. Hobart, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and POPE, Circuit Judge, and DRIVER, District Judge. DENMAN, Chief Judge. This is a petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Katz

    289 F.2d 700 (2d Cir. 1961)   Cited 10 times

    No. 82, Docket 26289. Argued November 15, 1960. Decided April 11, 1961. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel, James A. Ryan, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Raphael, Searles, Levin Vischi, New York City (Sidney O. Raphael, Leo M. Drachsler, New York City, of counsel), for respondent. Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and WATERMAN and MOORE, Circuit Judges. WATERMAN, Circuit Judge. The

  9. National Labor Rel. Board v. Henry Heide, Inc.

    219 F.2d 46 (2d Cir. 1955)   Cited 14 times

    No. 66, Docket 23078. Argued October 5, 1954. Decided January 19, 1955. George J. Bott, David P. Findling, A. Norman Somers, Frederick U. Reel and Rosanna A. Blake, Washington, D.C., for National Labor Relations Board. Schmidt, Egan, Kenny, Smith Murray, New York City (Godfrey P. Schmidt, of counsel), for respondent Henry Heide, Inc. Arnold Cohen, New York City (Herbert A. Simon, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for respondent Local 452. Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and L. HAND and FRANK, Circuit Judges

  10. Motor Valve Mfg. Co. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    149 F.2d 247 (6th Cir. 1945)   Cited 5 times
    In Prevost v. United States, 149 F.2d 247, relied on by the majority, the typewritten statement was signed by the defendant and that portion of it was admissible, but the caption on the paper which had a line under it, that is between it and the statement itself, was held inadmissible, as the witness on the stand said he had never read it and, as a matter of fact, had never seen it until it was presented to him in court.