§
Stoutco, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,035 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wyman-Gordon Co.

    394 U.S. 759 (1969)   Cited 809 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding invalid a legislative rule developed in agency adjudication

  3. Labor Board v. Columbian Co.

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

  4. Labor Board v. Donnelly Co.

    330 U.S. 219 (1947)   Cited 128 times
    Holding that a hearing examiner's prior adverse ruling did not prevent him from adjudicating the same case on retrial even though the examiner's initial decision had been reversed for improper exclusion of evidence

  5. Schwarzenbach-Huber Company v. N.L.R.B

    408 F.2d 236 (2d Cir. 1969)   Cited 13 times
    In The Schwarzenbach-Huber Company v. National Labor Relations Board etc., 408 F.2d 236 (CA-2), the court held that a speech made by the president of the company to the employees and a letter written to them by him shortly before the election did not constitute violations of Sec. 8(a)(1) and Sec. 8(c), as had been found by the Board.

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Arkansas Grain Corporation

    390 F.2d 824 (8th Cir. 1968)   Cited 13 times

    No. 18849. March 12, 1968. Rehearing Denied April 24, 1968. Harold B. Shore, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, N.L.R.B., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, N.L.R.B., and Glen Bendixsen, Attorney, N.L.R.B., on the brief. B.S. Clark, of Smith, Williams, Friday Bowen, Little Rock, Ark., for respondent. James C. Paradise and Herbert M. Berman, Cincinnati, Ohio

  7. Local No. 152 v. N.L.R.B

    343 F.2d 307 (D.C. Cir. 1965)   Cited 13 times
    In Local No. 152 there was evidence (1) that the union honestly but mistakenly believed it represented a majority of the employees in the unit when it sought recognition, and one week thereafter actually attained majority status, (2) the company responded that it was not interested in talking to the union, (3) the company did not in any manner dispute the union's claim of majority representation, (4) the company ignored the union's demand for recognition, and (5) the union petitioned the Board for an election.