Porto Mills, Inc.

37 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Erie Resistor Corp.
373 U.S. 221 (1963) Cited 359 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"
Radio Officers v. Labor Board
347 U.S. 17 (1954) Cited 471 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
Machinists Local v. Labor Board
362 U.S. 411 (1960) Cited 276 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely
Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.
370 U.S. 9 (1962) Cited 206 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections
Labor Board v. Truck Drivers Union
353 U.S. 87 (1957) Cited 197 times
Discussing congressional debate over the Taft-Hartley amendments of 1947
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'.
Marine Engineers v. Interlake Co.
370 U.S. 173 (1962) Cited 106 times
In Interlake, this Court held that only the Board could determine whether the union met the statutory definition of a "labor organization."
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. Cabot Carbon Co.
360 U.S. 203 (1959) Cited 57 times
Concluding that "dealing with" as used in 29 U.S.C. § 152 is a "broad term" and is not synonymous to "bargaining with"

Porto Mills, Inc.

37 Cited authorities

Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"

Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely

Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

Discussing congressional debate over the Taft-Hartley amendments of 1947

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 Interlake, this Court held that only the Board could determine whether the union met the statutory definition of a "labor organization."

Holding that corporation committed unfair labor practice

Concluding that "dealing with" as used in 29 U.S.C. § 152 is a "broad term" and is not synonymous to "bargaining with"