§

Ray Smith Transport Co.

89 N.L.R.B. 1045 (N.L.R.B. 1950)
Ray Smith Transport Co.

14 Cited authorities

  1. May Stores Co. v. Labor Board

    326 U.S. 376 (1945)   Cited 257 times
    Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"

  2. Labor Board v. Fainblatt

    306 U.S. 601 (1939)   Cited 281 times
    Upholding NLRA under Commerce Power

  3. Republic Steel Corp. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 7 (1940)   Cited 231 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Republic Steel, supra, the Court refused to enforce an order requiring the employer to pay the full amount of back pay to an employee who had been paid to work for the Work Projects Administration in the meantime.

  4. Labor Board v. Bradford Dyeing Assn

    310 U.S. 318 (1940)   Cited 150 times
    Construing "affecting commerce"

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Illinois Tool Works

    153 F.2d 811 (7th Cir. 1946)   Cited 47 times
    Noting that the test for violations of sec. 8, now codified as sec. 8, of the NLRA is whether "the employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act," and that actual or successful coercion need not be shown in order for the Board to find a violation

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sunshine Mining Co.

    110 F.2d 780 (9th Cir. 1940)   Cited 54 times

    No. 9162. April 3, 1940. Rehearing Granted, Decree Confirmed June 19, 1940. Petition to Enforce An Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Petition filed by the National Labor Relations Board to enforce an order issued by it in proceedings instituted by the board against the Sunshine Mining Company. Judgment enforcing the order as modified. Charles Fahy, Gen. Counsel, Robert B. Watts, Laurence A. Knapp and Malcolm F. Halliday, Asst. Gen. Counsels, and Leonard Appel, Atty., all of National Labor

  7. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    113 F.2d 85 (5th Cir. 1940)   Cited 36 times
    In Humble Oil Refining Company v. N.L.R.B., 5 Cir., 113 F.2d 85, 88, and other cases, we have pointed out; that the statute does not make the Board either "guardian or ruler" over employees of employer; it does not authorize it to substitute its judgment for that of the employer as to what is sufficient cause for discharge. It empowers it only to deliver the employees from acts and restraints forbidden by the statute, and to reinstate them when they have been discriminatorily discharged.

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Elec. City Dyeing

    178 F.2d 980 (3d Cir. 1950)   Cited 20 times
    In NLRB v. Electric City Dyeing Co., 178 F.2d 980 (3d Cir. 1950), this court had occasion to rule on a comparable situation where the employer alleged that certain employees were discharged for unsatisfactory work whereas the Board made a finding, in which we concurred, that the dismissals were for union activity.

  9. National Lbr. Rel. Bd. v. Cowell Portland C

    148 F.2d 237 (9th Cir. 1945)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that an offer of reinstatement was inadequate where the employee was required to change union affiliations

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fairmont Creamery

    169 F.2d 169 (10th Cir. 1948)   Cited 3 times

    No. 3610. July 14, 1948. Rehearing Denied August 9, 1948. On petition for enforcement of order of National Labor Relations Board. Petition by the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order against the Fairmont Creamery Company. Order enforced. Dominick Manoli, of Washington, D.C. (David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ruth Weyand, Acting Asst. Gen. Counsel, Owsley Vose and Harvey B. Diamond, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for