§

Metlox Manufacturing Co.

153 N.L.R.B. 1388 (N.L.R.B. 1965)
Metlox Manufacturing Co.

4 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.

    351 U.S. 149 (1956)   Cited 223 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

  2. Fruit Vegetable Packers v. N.L.R.B

    316 F.2d 389 (D.C. Cir. 1963)   Cited 9 times

    No. 16959. Argued December 17, 1962. Decided February 28, 1963. Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. David Previant, Milwaukee, Wis., was on the brief for petitioner. Mr. Hugh Hafer, Seattle, Wash., also entered an appearance for petitioner. Miss Vivian Asplund, Atty., N.L.R.B., of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost

  3. National Labor Rel. Board v. Otis Elevator Co.

    208 F.2d 176 (2d Cir. 1953)   Cited 14 times

    No. 28, Docket 22727. Argued October 6, 1953. Decided November 10, 1953. A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Asso. Gen. Counsel, and Frederick U. Reel and Mary E. Williamson, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Fayette S. Dunn, New York City, and Helen F. Humphrey, Washington, D.C. (Denham Humphrey, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Scharfstein

    209 F.2d 261 (6th Cir. 1953)

    No. 11984. December 2, 1953. George J. Bott, A. Norman Somers, Washington, D.C., John C. Getreu, Regional Director N.L.R.B., Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner. Harold M. Humphreys, Chattanooga, Tenn., for respondent. PER CURIAM. The National Labor Relations Board, having on March 31, 1953 issued an order against Respondents, and having filed its brief and record in the above case, and subsequent thereto having filed its motion for summary entry of decree due to Respondents' failure to file a counter-designation