§

Stafford Operating Co.

96 N.L.R.B. 1217 (N.L.R.B. 1951)
Stafford Operating Co.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board

    321 U.S. 702 (1944)   Cited 252 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.

  2. 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.

  3. Labor Board v. Bradford Dyeing Assn

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

  4. 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".

  5. National Labor Rel. Board v. Somerset Shoe Co.

    111 F.2d 681 (1st Cir. 1940)   Cited 33 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Somerset Shoe Co., 1 Cir., 111 F.2d 681, decided May 9, 1940, the provision was approved without discussion and, apparently, without consideration.

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mt. Clemens Pottery

    147 F.2d 262 (6th Cir. 1945)   Cited 23 times
    In NLRB v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 147 F.2d 262 (6th Cir. 1945), the Sixth Circuit reached a like result for employees who refused to work overtime, as did the Eighth Circuit in NLRB v. Montgomery Ward Co., 157 F.2d 486 (8th Cir. 1946), for employees who refused to perform a part of their clerical duties.

  7. National Labor Rel. Board v. E.A. Laboratories

    188 F.2d 885 (2d Cir. 1951)   Cited 15 times

    No. 79, Docket 21773. Argued April 3, 1951. Decided May 7, 1951. David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel and Harvey B. Diamond, all of Washington, D.C., for National Labor Relations Board, petitioner. Olvany, Eisner Donnelly, New York City (Merwin Lewis and Robert F. Welch, New York City, of counsel), for E.A. Laboratories, Inc., respondent. Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CLARK, Circuit Judges. AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge. The

  8. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Natl. Labor R. Board

    104 F.2d 49 (8th Cir. 1939)   Cited 24 times

    Nos. 425, 427, Original. May 29, 1939. Rehearing Denied July 24, 1939. Proceeding by the Hamilton-Brown Shoe Company, petitioner, against the National Labor Relations Board for review of a cease and desist order wherein the United Shoe Workers of America, Local 125, intervened, and petition by the Boot and Shoe Workers Union, an international union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and another, petitioners, against the National Labor Relations Board for a review of the same order

  9. National Labor Rel. Board v. Crosby Chemicals

    188 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1951)   Cited 10 times

    No. 13332. April 3, 1951. Richard C. Keenan, Chief Law Officer, National Labor Relations Bd., New Orleans, La., A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, National Labor Relations Bd., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Karl H. Mueller, Fort Worth, Tex., Allen R. LeCompte, DeRidder, La., for respondent. Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and McCORD, and BORAH, Circuit Judges. BORAH, Circuit Judge. This is a petition of the National Labor Relations Board for

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wilson Line

    122 F.2d 809 (3d Cir. 1941)   Cited 5 times
    In NLRB v. Wilson Line, 122 F.2d 809 (C.C.A.3d 1941) our Court of Appeals again held that a company cannot be required to reinstate employees for whom there is no work as a result of curtailment of operations. More recently in NLRB v. Southeastern Pipe Line Co., 210 F.2d 643 (5th Cir. 1954) it was held that where the employee did not have the knowledge required for a new position created by combining two former jobs and had been given a transfer to another location at the same pay, reinstatement should not be ordered.