§

Kerrigan Iron Works, Inc.

108 N.L.R.B. 933 (N.L.R.B. 1954)
Kerrigan Iron Works, Inc.

5 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Mackay Co.

    304 U.S. 333 (1938)   Cited 535 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices

  2. Kansas Milling Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    185 F.2d 413 (10th Cir. 1950)   Cited 36 times

    No. 4036. November 9, 1950. Rehearing Denied December 11, 1950. George Siefkin, Wichita, Kan. (Carl T. Smith, Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for petitioner. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C. (David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Assistant General Counsel, Washington D.C., and Leonard S. Kimmell, Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for respondent. Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and PICKETT, Circuit Judges. HUXMAN, Circuit Judge. This case is here on the petition of the Kansas Milling

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United States Cold Storage Corp.

    203 F.2d 924 (5th Cir. 1953)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that an employer who insists on negotiating by mail or that a union submit its proposals in writing has unlawfully refused to bargain

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Stilley Plywood Co.

    199 F.2d 319 (4th Cir. 1952)   Cited 15 times

    No. 6411. Argued October 8, 1952. Decided October 13, 1952. Owsley Vose, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Maurice Alexandre, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. John B. McCutcheon, Conway, S.C. (Suggs McCutcheon, Conway, S.C., and Arthur M. Williams, Jr., Columbia, S.C., on the brief), for respondent. Before

  5. Cathey v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    189 F.2d 428 (5th Cir. 1951)   Cited 4 times
    In Cathey v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 189 F.2d 428, a petition for enforcement of an order of the Labor Board was denied and the complaint dismissed by the Court of Appeals, where the union concerned had failed to comply with the non-Communist affidavit provisions of the Act.