§
Lamar Hotel

5 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Pittsburgh Glass Co. v. Board

    313 U.S. 146 (1941)   Cited 294 times
    In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.

  3. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    162 F.2d 435 (7th Cir. 1947)   Cited 18 times
    In Allis-Chalmers the employer downgraded the status of plant inspectors after they had voted to join a union, and it was apparent that the employer acted only because of the inspectors' membership in the union.

  4. National Labor Rel. Board v. W. Kentucky Coal

    152 F.2d 198 (6th Cir. 1945)   Cited 19 times

    No. 9936. December 6, 1945. Petition for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Petition for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board against West Kentucky Coal Company. Order modified, and enforced, as modified. Owsley Vose, of Washington, D.C. (David A. Morse, and Malcolm F. Halliday, A. Norman Somers, and Owsley Vose, all of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. James G. Wheeler, of Paducah, Ky. (James G. Wheeler, of Paducah, Ky., and M.K

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Clark Lewis Co.

    274 F.2d 817 (5th Cir. 1960)

    No. 17963. February 17, 1960. Richard J. Scupi, Atty., Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Frederick U. Reel, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Robert C. Lane, Miami, Fla., for respondent. Before RIVES, Chief Judge, and HUTCHESON and TUTTLE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced