Scullin Steel Co.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.

    312 U.S. 426 (1941)   Cited 505 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"
  2. I.A. of M. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 72 (1940)   Cited 316 times
    In International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L. Ed. 50, there had been a long history of management favoritism to the established and hostility to the aspiring union; and in Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. 702, 703, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818, 88 L.Ed. 1020, the employer had "conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the union won the election."
  3. 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"
  4. 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.
  5. Labor Board v. Sands Mfg. Co.

    306 U.S. 332 (1939)   Cited 139 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Sands Mfg. Co., 306 U.S. 332, 59 S.Ct. 508, 83 L.Ed. 682, affirming the ruling of this Court in 6 Cir., 96 F.2d 721, the Supreme Court held the employer justified in abandoning further negotiations with the Union when conditions showed the uselessness of continuing with them.
  6. Labor Board v. Electric Cleaner Co.

    315 U.S. 685 (1942)   Cited 39 times

    CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 588. Argued March 5, 1942. Decided March 30, 1942. 1. The finding of the National Labor Relations Board that, by a supplementary oral contract between an employer and a labor union, it was agreed only that new employees would be required to join the union, was supported by substantial evidence. P. 690. 2. The conclusion of the Board that the closed-shop agreement between the employer and a labor union in this case was not valid