§

Mason City Dressed Beef

231 N.L.R.B. 735 (N.L.R.B. 1977)
Mason City Dressed Beef

14 Cited authorities

  1. Edison Co. v. Labor Board

    305 U.S. 197 (1938)   Cited 19,302 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

  2. San Diego Unions v. Garmon

    359 U.S. 236 (1959)   Cited 2,558 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.

    406 U.S. 272 (1972)   Cited 478 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement

  4. Howard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Local Joint Exec. Bd., Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l Union, AFL-CIO

    417 U.S. 249 (1974)   Cited 366 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding under NLRA that purchaser of hotel assets was not required to arbitrate with union about its decision not to hire all of seller’s employees

  5. Labor Board v. Mexia Textile Mills

    339 U.S. 563 (1950)   Cited 132 times
    Reasoning that Board's entitlement to enforcement prevents cases from becoming moot because it "adds to existing sanctions that of punishment for contempt"

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Southern Greyhound Lines

    426 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir. 1970)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 27429. April 20, 1970. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Harold A. Boire, Director, Region 12, N.L.R.B., Tampa, Fla., for petitioner. Robert F. Houlihan, Lexington, Ky., for respondent. Before GOLDBERG, DYER and CARSWELL, Circuit Judges. GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge: The National Labor Relations Board here seeks enforcement of an order issued against Southern Greyhound Lines, Inc. Our basic problem revolves around the discharge of a conscientious

  7. Piasecki Aircraft Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    280 F.2d 575 (3d Cir. 1960)   Cited 31 times

    Nos. 12912, 12995. Argued February 1, 1960. Decided June 20, 1960. As Amended on Denial of Rehearing in No. 12912, August 26, 1960. Francis E. Marshall, Philadelphia, Pa. (James J. Davis, Davis, Marshall Crumlish, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for petitioner Piasecki Aircraft Corp. Lowell Goerlich, Washington, D.C. (Ernest S. Wilson, Jr., Wilmington, Del., on the brief), for petitioners UAW-AFL-CIO and its Local 840. Allison W. Brown Jr., Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Thomas

  8. K.B. J. Young's Super Markets v. N.L.R.B

    377 F.2d 463 (9th Cir. 1967)   Cited 17 times

    No. 20827. April 28, 1967. Ted Frame, Frame Courtney, Coalinga, Cal., for appellant. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Herman M. Levy, Marsha E. Swiss, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Roy O. Hoffman, Director, N.L.R.B., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Charles M. Arak, Los Angeles, Cal., for intervenor, Butchers Union Local 193, AFL-CIO. Before HAMLIN, JERTBERG and MERRILL, Circuit Judges. MERRILL, Circuit Judge:

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Brown Root, Inc

    203 F.2d 139 (8th Cir. 1953)   Cited 29 times

    No. 14680. March 24, 1953. Rehearing Denied July 8, 1953. Harvey B. Diamond, 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 Owsley Vose, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on the brief) for petitioner. Ben H. Powell, Jr., Austin, Tex. (William A. Brown and Powell, Wirtz Rauhut, Austin, Tex., on the brief) for respondent Ozark Dam Constructors. Ben H.

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Richard W. Kaase Company

    346 F.2d 24 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 14 times
    In NLRB v. Richard W. Kaase Co., 346 F.2d 24 (6th Cir. 1965), the Sixth Circuit did hold that withdrawal from a multi-employer unit vitiated the presumption despite the existence of a separate contract between the union and Kaase. But in that case the union's position as exclusive bargaining representative of the Kaase employees originated with an election in the multi-employer unit.