Sam Zall Milling Co.

12 Cited authorities

Edison Co. v. Labor Board
305 U.S. 197 (1938) Cited 19,302 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay
Labor Board v. Columbian Co.
306 U.S. 292 (1939) Cited 994 times
Defining substantial evidence
J.I. Case Co. v. Labor Board
321 U.S. 332 (1944) Cited 457 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the result of a collective bargaining agreement is not "a contract of employment except in rare cases; no one has a job by reason of it and no obligation to any individual ordinarily comes into existence from it alone"
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
Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
321 U.S. 678 (1944) Cited 269 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8
Roland Co. v. Walling
326 U.S. 657 (1946) Cited 173 times
In Roland Co. v. Walling, 326 U.S. 657, 66 S.Ct. 413, 90 L.Ed. 383 (1946), the Court held inter alia that a business engaged in commercial wiring, electrical contracting for industry, and repair and replacement of electric motors and generators did not constitute a "retail or service establishment."
Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board
185 F.2d 732 (D.C. Cir. 1950) Cited 162 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Joy Silk the Court held that when an employer could have no doubt as to the majority status or when an employer refuses recognition of a union "due to a desire to gain time and to take action to dissipate the union's majority, the refusal is no longer justifiable and constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain set forth in section 8(a)(5) of the Act".
National Labor Relations Bd. v. Federbush Co.
121 F.2d 954 (2d Cir. 1941) Cited 85 times 2 Legal Analyses
In National Labor Relations Board v. Federbush Co., 121 Fed. 2d 954, decided July 18, 1941, the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was written by Judge Learned Hand.
McComb v. Super-A Fertilizer Works
165 F.2d 824 (1st Cir. 1948) Cited 18 times
No. 4293. January 27, 1948. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for Puerto Rico; Robert A. Cooper, Judge. Action by William R. McComb, Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, against Super-A Fertilizer Works, Inc., to restrain defendant from violating Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, § 15(a) (2, 5), 29 U.S.C.A. § 215(a) (2, 5). From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals. Judgment vacated and cause remanded with directions. Frederick U. Reel
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kelco Corp.
178 F.2d 578 (4th Cir. 1949) Cited 16 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Kelco Corp., 178 F.2d 578 (4 Cir. 1949), the late Chief Judge Parker, in writing for this court, held that violence and intimidation of a serious character must be considered by the Board in determining justification for refusing to reinstate such strikers.

Sam Zall Milling Co.

12 Cited authorities

Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

Defining substantial evidence

Holding that the result of a collective bargaining agreement is not "a contract of employment except in rare cases; no one has a job by reason of it and no obligation to any individual ordinarily comes into existence from it alone"

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

Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8

In National Labor Relations Board v. Federbush Co., 121 Fed. 2d 954, decided July 18, 1941, the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was written by Judge Learned Hand.

In N.L.R.B. v. Kelco Corp., 178 F.2d 578 (4 Cir. 1949), the late Chief Judge Parker, in writing for this court, held that violence and intimidation of a serious character must be considered by the Board in determining justification for refusing to reinstate such strikers.