Kingston Cake Co., Inc.

16 Cited authorities

  1. Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.

    309 U.S. 350 (1940)   Cited 315 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA
  2. Wallace Corp. v. Labor Board

    323 U.S. 248 (1944)   Cited 162 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that corporation committed unfair labor practice
  3. Inland Empire Council v. Millis

    325 U.S. 697 (1945)   Cited 106 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Inland Empire, a union that had lost a representation election brought suit in district court challenging the Board's proceedings on the ground that there had not been the "appropriate hearing" mandated by Section 9(c) of the NLRA. It argued that the failure to provide such a hearing violated the union's statutory and due process rights.
  4. Labor Board v. I. M. Electric Co.

    318 U.S. 9 (1943)   Cited 108 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Indiana Michigan Electric Co., 318 U.S. 9, at page 28, 63 S.Ct. 394, at page 405, 87 L.Ed. 579, the Supreme Court stated the general fundamental principles with respect to findings of fact by the Board, saying that the reviewing court is given discretion to see that before a party's rights are foreclosed his case has been fairly heard, and "Findings cannot be said to have been fairly reached unless material evidence which might impeach, as well as that which will support, its findings, is heard and weighed."
  5. Labor Board v. Int. Brotherhood

    308 U.S. 413 (1940)   Cited 50 times

    CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 253. Argued December 8, 1939. Decided January 2, 1940. A direction for an election made by the National Labor Relations Board in a representation proceeding under § 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act is not reviewable by a Circuit Court of Appeals under § 10 of the Act. American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Board, ante, p. 401. P. 414. 105 F.2d 598, reversed. CERTIORARI, post, p. 537, to review a judgment

  6. Consumers Power Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    113 F.2d 38 (6th Cir. 1940)   Cited 56 times
    In Consumers Power Co. v. N.L.R.B., 6 Cir., 113 F.2d 38, 41, we considered and rejected the argument that no immediate and direct effect upon interstate commerce follows a labor controversy which curtails the employer's activity when its products are sold to an intervening private agency over whom the employer has no authority or control. It was said in Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 59 S.Ct. 206, 214, 83 L. Ed. 126, "it is the effect upon interstate or foreign commerce, not the source of the injury, which is the criterion."
  7. Cupples Co. Manufacturers v. N.L.R.B

    106 F.2d 100 (8th Cir. 1939)   Cited 48 times
    In Cupples Co. Manufacturers v. National Labor Relations Board, 8 Cir., 106 F.2d 100, 113, we made the suggestion that if a trial examiner would, "within reasonable limits, permit each of the parties to the proceeding before him to prove his own case, in his own way, by his own counsel," charges of lack of due process for failure to accord a full and fair hearing could readily be avoided.
  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hudson Motor Car

    128 F.2d 528 (6th Cir. 1942)   Cited 29 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Hudson Motor Car Co., 6 Cir., 128 F.2d 528, 533, it was stated: "We think it right and just to say that so far as the record shows, respondent has not wilfully violated the provisions of the Act, but the intent of the employer is not within the ambit of our power of review.
  9. National Labor Rel. Board v. Gluek Brewing Co.

    144 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1944)   Cited 26 times
    In Glueck, the court recognized that an independent contractor could not be held liable for an unfair labor practice if it was "an entirely innocent and unconscious instrument" of the perpetrator of the practice, but "[w]here an independent contractor knowingly participates in the effectuation of an unfair practice, it places itself within the orbit of the Board's corrective jurisdiction."
  10. McQuay-Norris Mfg. Co. v. Natl. Labor R. Board

    116 F.2d 748 (7th Cir. 1940)   Cited 29 times

    No. 7269. December 23, 1940. Petition for Review of Order of National Labor Relations Board. Proceeding by the McQuay-Norris Manufacturing Company to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board. The Board requested enforcement of its order. Request for enforcement allowed. Barnes, Hickam, Pantzer Boyd and Paul Y. Davis, all of Indianapolis, Ind. (Kurt F. Pantzer, of Indianapolis, Ind., of counsel), for petitioner. Gerhard P. Van Arkel, of Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before EVANS and