§

Maple City Stamping Co.

200 N.L.R.B. 743 (N.L.R.B. 1972)
Maple City Stamping Co.

24 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.

    369 U.S. 404 (1962)   Cited 298 times
    Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

  2. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board

    324 U.S. 793 (1945)   Cited 495 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

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

    233 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1956)   Cited 133 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. McGahey, 233 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1956), this court described casual and moderate inquiries, even as to union preference, absent evidence indicating that the employee has reason to consider the inquiries a threat of reprisals, as not constituting an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8(a)(1).

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Griggs Equipment, Inc.

    307 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1962)   Cited 52 times
    In Griggs, the issue was not even mentioned in the Board's Decision, but is noted in the decision of the court of appeals.

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Whitin Mach. Works

    204 F.2d 883 (1st Cir. 1953)   Cited 57 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Whitin Machine Works, 204 F.2d 883 (1st Cir.1953), for example, an assistant supervisor in his employer's accounting department was, upon a consideration of the nature of his work, determined not to be a supervisor for purposes of litigating his discharge from employment, and, therefore, he was entitled to the protections of the National Labor Relations Act. 204 F.2d at 886.

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Melrose Processing Co.

    351 F.2d 693 (8th Cir. 1965)   Cited 33 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Melrose Processing Co., 8 Cir., 351 F.2d 693, also decided since this case was submitted, this court stated that if the factual conclusion of the Board is based upon substantial evidence on the whole record, this court must accept such factual determination as binding. Jas. H. Matthews Co. v. N.L.R.B., 8 Cir., 354 F.2d 432, decided December 29, 1965, adheres to these principles.

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Joseph Antell, Inc.

    358 F.2d 880 (1st Cir. 1966)   Cited 26 times
    In Antell, the court stated that the smallness of a plant, or a staff, may be material as bearing on the knowledge on the part of the employer of an employee's union activities, but only to the extent that it may be shown to have made it likely that the employer observed, or otherwise learned about the activity in question.

  8. Portable Electric Tools, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    309 F.2d 423 (7th Cir. 1962)   Cited 29 times
    In Portable Electric Tools, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 7 Cir. (1962), 309 F.2d 423, we considered a situation in many respects similar to the case at bar.

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Longhorn Transfer Service, Inc.

    346 F.2d 1003 (5th Cir. 1965)   Cited 25 times

    No. 21347. June 15, 1965. Warren M. Davidson, Atty., N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Leo N. McGuire, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. James J. Loeffler, Houston, Tex., Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates Jaworski, Houston, Tex., of counsel, for respondent. Before HUTCHESON, BROWN and GEWIN, Circuit Judges. HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge. This is a proceeding to enforce an order

  10. Maphis Chapman Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    368 F.2d 298 (4th Cir. 1966)   Cited 22 times

    No. 9920. Argued October 5, 1965. Decided November 2, 1966. James A. Harper, Jr., Richmond, Va. (Francis V. Lowden, Jr., and Hunton, Williams, Gay, Powell Gibson, Richmond, Va., on brief), for petitioner. Paul M. Thompson, Atty., National Labor Relations Board (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Gary Green, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, on brief), for respondent. Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF