§

P. A. Mueller and Sons, Inc.

105 N.L.R.B. 552 (N.L.R.B. 1953)
P. A. Mueller and Sons, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Packard Co. v. Labor Board

    330 U.S. 485 (1947)   Cited 382 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Board determinations of unit issues involves a "large measure of informed discretion."

  2. 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."

  3. Pittsburgh Glass Co. v. Board

    313 U.S. 146 (1941)   Cited 294 times
    In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Howell Chevrolet Co.

    204 F.2d 79 (9th Cir. 1953)   Cited 53 times
    In National Labor Relations Bd. v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 204 F.2d 79, 86 (9th Cir. 1953), we recognized that "carriage, behavior, bearing, manner and appearance of a witness, — his demeanor, —" may cause the trier of fact to reject uncontradicted testimony.

  5. Pittsburgh Plate Glass v. Natl. Labor R. Board

    113 F.2d 698 (8th Cir. 1940)   Cited 51 times
    In Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, supra, 113 F.2d 698, 702, we expressed the opinion that the practice which should be followed by a trial examiner in taking evidence and ruling upon objections to evidence is that which applies to special masters in equity proceedings, and "that the record should contain all evidence offered by any party in interest, except such as is palpably incompetent * *."

  6. International, Etc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    110 F.2d 29 (D.C. Cir. 1939)   Cited 36 times
    In International Association of Machinists v. National Labor Relations Board, 71 App.D.C. 175, 110 F.2d 29, 46, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia makes plain that the decision as to what is an appropriate bargaining unit under the circumstances is a delicate one which has been delegated by Congress to the Board.

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Carlton Wood Prod

    201 F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1953)   Cited 14 times
    Signing consent agreement waives hearing on voter eligibility challenge

  8. National Labor Rel. Board v. Somerville Buick

    194 F.2d 56 (1st Cir. 1952)   Cited 13 times

    No. 4606. January 28, 1952. Dominick L. Manoli, Attorney, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, and Roland E. Ginsburg, Attorney, all of Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner. Julius Kirle, Boston, Mass., for respondent. Before CLARK, WOODBURY, and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges. HARTIGAN, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bill Daniels, Inc.

    202 F.2d 579 (6th Cir. 1953)   Cited 10 times

    Nos. 11536, 11582. January 20, 1953. Rehearing Denied March 17, 1953. John E. Jay, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, David P. Findling, A. Norman Somers and Frederick U. Reel, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Frank E. Kenney, Detroit, Mich., for respondents. Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges. ALLEN, Circuit Judge. The question presented in these cases arising out of petitions for enforcement of orders of the National Labor Relations Board is whether

  10. National Labor Relations Bd. v. Sexton

    203 F.2d 940 (6th Cir. 1953)   Cited 9 times

    No. 11816. April 16, 1953. George J. Bott and A. Norman Somers, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Robert T. Caldwell, Ashland, Ky., for respondent. Before ALLEN, MARTIN and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. The above cause came on to be heard upon the record, the briefs of the parties, and the argument of counsel. The Board found that respondent refused to bargain collectively with the certified bargaining representative in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)