Pacific Manifolding Book Co., Inc.

14 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Laughlin
301 U.S. 1 (1937) Cited 1,499 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Comm'n
301 U.S. 292 (1937) Cited 532 times
Holding that a telephone company did not waive its right to have the value of its property determined upon evidence presented in open proceedings by not opposing consolidation of two proceedings, and noting that "[w]e do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights"
Morgan v. United States
298 U.S. 468 (1936) Cited 542 times
Holding that the Constitution only requires that the officer making the decision must consider and appraise the evidence which justifies the decision
Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co.
311 U.S. 584 (1941) Cited 338 times
Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"
Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.
309 U.S. 350 (1940) Cited 315 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA
Labor Bd. v. Greyhound Lines
303 U.S. 261 (1938) Cited 264 times
In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.
Amalgamated Workers v. Edison Co.
309 U.S. 261 (1940) Cited 211 times
In Amalgamated Workers v. Edison Co., 309 U.S. 261, we held that the Board had implied authority to institute contempt proceedings for violation of court decrees enforcing orders of the Board.
Market Street R. Co. v. Comm'n
324 U.S. 548 (1945) Cited 172 times
Holding the Railroad Commission's error harmless "in the absence of any showing of . . . prejudice" by the petitioners who made "[n]o contention . . . that the information was erroneous or was misunderstood by the Commission, and no contention . . . that the Company could have disproved it or explained away its effect for the purpose for which the Commission used it"
Wallace Corp. v. Labor Board
323 U.S. 248 (1944) Cited 162 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that corporation committed unfair labor practice
Labor Board v. Falk Corp.
308 U.S. 453 (1940) Cited 140 times
In Falk, the two proceedings were held simultaneously, whereas in our case the representation case preceded the unfair labor case.

Pacific Manifolding Book Co., Inc.

14 Cited authorities

Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis

Holding that a telephone company did not waive its right to have the value of its property determined upon evidence presented in open proceedings by not opposing consolidation of two proceedings, and noting that "[w]e do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights"

Holding that the Constitution only requires that the officer making the decision must consider and appraise the evidence which justifies the decision

Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"

Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA

In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.

In Amalgamated Workers v. Edison Co., 309 U.S. 261, we held that the Board had implied authority to institute contempt proceedings for violation of court decrees enforcing orders of the Board.

Holding that corporation committed unfair labor practice

In Falk, the two proceedings were held simultaneously, whereas in our case the representation case preceded the unfair labor case.