3 Cited authorities
Machinists Local v. Labor Board
362 U.S. 411 (1960) Cited 276 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely
Penello v. Retail Store Employees Local Union No. 692
188 F. Supp. 192 (D. Md. 1960) Cited 7 timesCiv. No. 12472. September 23, 1960. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Charles B. Slaughter, Atty., NLRB, Washington, D.C., and Theodore K. High, Atty., NLRB, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner. Melvin A. Steinberg, Baltimore, Md., and Joseph E. Finley, Cleveland, Ohio, for respondent. THOMSEN, Chief Judge. Facts This proceeding is before the court on a petition of the Regional Director of the Fifth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, on behalf of the Board, pursuant to sec. 10( l) of the
Penello v. Retail Store Employees Local Union No. 692
287 F.2d 509 (4th Cir. 1961) Cited 5 timesNo. 8243. Argued January 5, 1961. Decided March 3, 1961. Joseph E. Finley, Cleveland, Ohio (Rudd, Ober, Finley Miller, Cleveland, Ohio and Melvin A. Steinberg, Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellant. Winthrop A. Johns, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Charles B. Slaughter, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for appellee. Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and HAYNSWORTH and BOREMAN, Circuit