6 Cited authorities
N.L.R.B. v. Laney Duke Storage Warehouse Co.
369 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1966) Cited 59 timesIn Laney Duke, the ALJ had ordered the employer to read the notice to any employee who requested it, but the Board had expanded this to require a reading to all employees, singly or collectively, whether or not requested. The Fifth Circuit denied enforcement because it considered this remedy "unnecessarily embarrassing and humiliating to management rather than effectuating the policies of the Act."
N.L.R.B. v. Zelrich Company
344 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir. 1965) Cited 50 timesNo. 21482. May 11, 1965. Rehearing Denied June 22, 1965. Thomas Canafax, Jr., 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., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Anthony J. Obadal, Attys., N.L.R.B., for petitioner. Warren Whitham, Dallas, Tex., for respondent. Before BROWN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, District Judge. HUNTER, District Judge. The National Labor Relations Board,
General Elec., Battery Prod., v. N.L.R.B
400 F.2d 713 (5th Cir. 1968) Cited 24 timesNo. 24548. August 22, 1968. Rehearing Denied October 28, 1968. Robert C. Lanquist, Otto R.T. Bowden, Jacksonville, Fla., for petitioner. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Thomas R. Beech, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Frank Hamilton, Jr., Tampa, Fla., amicus curiae. Before BELL, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges. GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge: In our assessment of another industrial drama, we again turn to the rise and decline of a local union: its birth and early struggles
Air Control Products, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
344 F.2d 902 (5th Cir. 1965) Cited 1 timesNo. 20289. May 5, 1965. P.D. Thomson, D.P.S. Paul, Paul Sams, Miami, Fla., Seymour A. Gopman, of Kastenbaum, Mamber, Gopman, Epstein Miles, Miami Beach, Fla., for petitioner. Melvin Pollack, Atty, NLRB, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen., Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, for respondent. Before JONES and WISDOM, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge. PER CURIAM: The challenged findings of the National Labor Relations
Law v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
192 F.2d 236 (10th Cir. 1951) Cited 10 timesNo. 4224. October 25, 1951. R.C. Garland, Las Cruces, N.M. (Garland Sanders, Las Cruces, N.M., on the brief), for petitioners. Arnold Ordman, Atty., NLRB, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, NLRB, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, NLRB, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Arnold Ordman, Atty., NLRB, all of Washington, D.C., and Rosanna A. Blake, Atty., NLRB, Takoma Park, Md., on the brief), for respondent. Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and BRATTON and HUXMAN, Circuit
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,092 times 34 Legal AnalysesFinding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"