Struthers Wells Corp.

4 Cited authorities

  1. N.L.R.B. v. Miller Redwood Company

    407 F.2d 1366 (9th Cir. 1969)   Cited 42 times

    No. 22573. February 25, 1969. Herbert Fishgold, Washington, D.C. (argued), Janet Kohn, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., Roy O. Hoffman, N.L.R.B., San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Carrell F. Bradley (argued), of Schwenn, Bradley Batchelor, Hillsboro, Or., for respondent. Before MADDEN, Judge of the Court of Claims, and CHAMBERS and CARTER, Circuit Judges. J. Warren Madden, Senior Judge, United

  2. International Tel. and Tel. Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    382 F.2d 366 (3d Cir. 1967)   Cited 30 times
    Finding that a mixed unit of professional and non-professional employees, though frowned upon within section 9 of the Act, was still protected by section 8's bargaining requirement
  3. N.L.R.B. v. Miller Brewing Company

    408 F.2d 12 (9th Cir. 1969)   Cited 17 times

    No. 22698. February 20, 1969. John D. Burgoyne (argued), Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, David C. Nevins, Washington, D.C., Paul A. Cassady, Director, NLRB, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Willard Z. Carr, Jr. (argued) of Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Before BARNES and ELY, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON, District Judge. Hon. Harry Pregerson, United States District Judge, Los Angeles

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.

    322 F.2d 913 (9th Cir. 1963)   Cited 18 times

    No. 18364. September 23, 1963. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Melvin J. Welles and Paula Omansky, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Hill, Farrer Burrill, Carl M. Gould and Stanley E. Tobin, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Before HAMLEY, JERTBERG and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges. JERTBERG, Circuit Judge. This case is before the court on the petition of the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter