§

Salerno-Megowen Biscuit Co.

152 N.L.R.B. 604 (N.L.R.B. 1965)
Salerno-Megowen Biscuit Co.

5 Cited authorities

  1. 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.

  2. N.L.R.B. v. O.K. Van Storage, Inc.

    297 F.2d 74 (5th Cir. 1961)   Cited 50 times
    In NLRB v. O.K. Van Storage, Inc., (5 Cir. 1961) 297 F.2d 74, 76, the necessity for granting a hearing on objections to an election was under consideration.

  3. N.L.R.B. v. J.R. Simplot Company

    322 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1963)   Cited 17 times

    No. 18243. August 20, 1963. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Melvin J. Welles, Melvin H. Reifin and James C. Parras, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Petersen, Moss Olsen, and Dennis M. Olsen, Idaho Falls, Idaho and L.E. Haight, Boise, Idaho, for respondent. Before POPE, HAMLEY and MERRILL, Circuit Judges. MERRILL, Circuit Judge. NLRB here petitions for enforcement of an order

  4. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    162 F.2d 435 (7th Cir. 1947)   Cited 18 times
    In Allis-Chalmers the employer downgraded the status of plant inspectors after they had voted to join a union, and it was apparent that the employer acted only because of the inspectors' membership in the union.

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. American Steel Buck

    227 F.2d 927 (2d Cir. 1955)   Cited 7 times

    No. 50, Docket 23577. Argued October 13, 1955. Decided December 1, 1955. Theophil C. Kammholz, David P. Findling, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Elizabeth W. Weston and Rose Mary Filipowicz, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Raphael, Searles, Levin Vischi, New York City (Sidney O. Raphael, New York City, of counsel), for respondent. Before FRANK, HINCKS and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. As the facts are fully stated in the Board's decision, reported in 110 N.L.R.B. No. 265, we shall not repeat them