§
Scott & Scott

19 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Columbian Co.

    306 U.S. 292 (1939)   Cited 994 times
    Defining substantial evidence

  2. Labor Board v. Bradford Dyeing Assn

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

  3. 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".

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Whittier Mills Co.

    111 F.2d 474 (5th Cir. 1940)   Cited 67 times
    Interpreting Virginian Railway's holding as “[w]here with fair opportunity to all members of the unit to vote, a majority do vote, they are, so to speak, a quorum to settle the matter, and the majority of that quorum binds those not voting, and suffices to select the bargaining representative of the unit”

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kobritz

    193 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1951)   Cited 43 times
    Upholding an NLRB departure from a policy of declining to assert jurisdiction, on the ground that "the Board had jurisdiction all the time"

  6. National Labor Relations Bd. v. Jackson Press

    201 F.2d 541 (7th Cir. 1953)   Cited 23 times

    No. 10702. January 29, 1953. David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Louis Schwartz, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., George J. Bott, General Counsel, and Frederick U. Reel, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. John H. Doesburg, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for respondent. Before DUFFY, FINNEGAN and LINDLEY, Circuit Judges. DUFFY, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter called

  7. Globe Cotton Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board

    103 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1939)   Cited 39 times
    In Globe Cotton Mills v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 103 F.2d 91, 94, the court said: "there is a duty on both sides * * * to enter into discussion with an open and fair mind, and a sincere purpose to find a basis of agreement touching wages and hours and conditions of labor, and if found to embody it in a contract as specific as possible, which shall stand as a mutual guaranty of conduct, and as a guide for the adjustment of grievances."

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Stewart

    207 F.2d 8 (5th Cir. 1953)   Cited 19 times

    No. 14380. September 9, 1953. Rehearing Denied October 8, 1953. Thomas F. Maher, Atty., A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, Bernard Dunau, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. George E. Seay, Dallas, Tex., Chas. F. Potter, Tyler, Tex., Paul Branch, Kilgore, Tex., Lasseter, Spruiell, Lowry, Potter Lasater, Tyler, Tex., Malone, Lipscomb Seay, Dallas, Tex., for respondents. Before HUTCHESON

  9. National Labor Relations Bd. v. W.T. Grant Co.

    199 F.2d 711 (9th Cir. 1952)   Cited 13 times

    No. 13133. November 10, 1952. George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, NLRB, David P. Findling, Asst., A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Coun., Marcel Mallet-Prevost and Irving M. Herman, Attys., NLRB, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Eugene M. Foley, New York City, for respondent. Before HEALY and POPE, Circuit Judges, and HARRISON, District Judge. HEALY, Circuit Judge. This matter is here on petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of an order issued against respondent, the operator of a

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Louisville Ref. Co.

    102 F.2d 678 (6th Cir. 1939)   Cited 26 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Louisville Refining Co. 102 F.2d 678, 680, certiorari denied sub nomine Louisville Refining Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 308 U.S. 568, it was held that it was established that a union had actually been designated as the bargaining representative of a majority of the employees involved, by the fact that signed applications for membership in that union had been executed by them.