§

Kit Manufacturing Co.

105 N.L.R.B. 597 (N.L.R.B. 1953)
Kit Manufacturing Co.

5 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dinion Coil Co.

    201 F.2d 484 (2d Cir. 1952)   Cited 96 times
    Observing that "methods of evaluating the credibility of oral testimony do not lend themselves to formulations in terms of rules"

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Armato

    199 F.2d 800 (7th Cir. 1952)   Cited 38 times

    No. 10691. November 19, 1952. George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Dominick L. Manoli, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. O.S. Hoebreckx and Clark M. Robertson, Robertson Hoebreckx, Milwaukee, Wis., for respondents. Before MAJOR, Chief Judge, and LINDLEY and SWAIM, Circuit Judges. LINDLEY, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to the provisions

  4. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    195 F.2d 955 (8th Cir. 1952)   Cited 10 times

    No. 14414. April 29, 1952. Rehearing Denied May 27, 1952. Harold A. Thomas, Jr., St. Louis, Mo. (N.W. Hartman and Fordyce, Mayne, Hartman, Renard Stribling, St. Louis, Mo., were with him on the brief) for petitioner. Arnold Ordman, 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 Ruth Calvin Goldman, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sterling Fur. Co.

    202 F.2d 41 (9th Cir. 1953)   Cited 4 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Sterling Furniture Co., 202 F.2d 41 (9 Cir., 1953) this Court in response to the argument of the Board that an order could not be issued against an association which had voluntarily appeared, but had not by amendment of the complaint been made a party, stated that the Board's position was not based upon considerations having to do with vindication of the policy of the Act, but on assumed procedural difficulties which had no merit in light of the Board's amendatory powers.