Local 404, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America

5 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kobritz

    193 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1951)   Cited 43 times
    Upholding an NLRB departure from a policy of declining to assert jurisdiction, on the ground that "the Board had jurisdiction all the time"
  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. Cusano v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    190 F.2d 898 (3d Cir. 1951)   Cited 35 times

    No. 10404. Argued May 22, 1951. Filed August 16, 1951. Samuel J. Davidson, Hoboken, N.J. (DeFazio, Davidson DeFazio, Hoboken, N.J., on the brief), for petitioners. Arnold Ordman, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Mark C. Curran, Washington, D.C., Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, on the brief), for respondent. Before GOODRICH, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges. STALEY, Circuit Judge. This case is

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Underwood Mach. Co.

    179 F.2d 118 (1st Cir. 1950)   Cited 11 times
    In NLRB v. Underwood Machinery Co., 179 F.2d 118, 121 (1st Cir. 1949), this court found the reasoning of Judge (later Justice) Minton's Marshall Field dissent "persuasive."
  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.