§

Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc.

78 N.L.R.B. 1144 (N.L.R.B. 1948)
Mylan-Sparta Co., Inc.

4 Cited authorities

  1. I.A. of M. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 72 (1940)   Cited 317 times
    In International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L. Ed. 50, there had been a long history of management favoritism to the established and hostility to the aspiring union; and in Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. 702, 703, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818, 88 L.Ed. 1020, the employer had "conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the union won the election."

  2. Labor Board v. Virginia Power Co.

    314 U.S. 469 (1941)   Cited 169 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Virginia Electric Power Co., 314 U.S. 469, 477, 62 S.Ct. 344, 348, 86 L.Ed. 348 (1941), the Supreme court concluded that the Wagner Act could not be interpreted to prohibit an employer from exercising his First Amendment right to express his views to employees on the merits of unionization, provided the expression was neither coercive nor part of a coercive course of conduct.

  3. Brown v. Hammer

    203 F.2d 239 (4th Cir. 1953)   Cited 3 times

    No. 6545. Argued March 16, 1953. Decided April 7, 1953. Douglas McKay, Jr., Columbia, S.C. (McKay McKay, Columbia, S.C., and Solomon Gilbert, New York City, on brief), for appellants. Henry Hammer, pro se, and N. Walser Edens, pro se (Nelson, Mullins Grier, Columbia, S.C., on brief), for appellees. Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This is a petition for the allowance of an appeal under 11 U.S.C.A. § 650 from an order of the District Court in a reorganization

  4. Matter of Miller v. Van Raalte Co., Inc.

    263 App. Div. 1034 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)

    March 11, 1942. Present — Hill, P.J., Crapser, Bliss, Schenck and Foster, JJ. Appeal from an award of disability compensation. Claimant was employed in a factory where fabric and leather gloves were manufactured. An infection developed in one of her eyes. Previous to this time she had no trouble with her eyes. There is competent and credible evidence which indicates that fuzz from the materials which she used in her work was an irritant to the conjunctive of the eye, and that this was a competent