§

Suffolk Mack, Inc.

183 N.L.R.B. 433 (N.L.R.B. 1970)
Suffolk Mack, Inc.

5 Cited authorities

  1. Garment Workers v. Labor Board

    366 U.S. 731 (1961)   Cited 213 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union cannot represent a group of employees for which it does not enjoy majority support

  2. Overnite Transportation Company v. N.L.R.B

    372 F.2d 765 (4th Cir. 1967)   Cited 28 times

    Nos. 10570, 10617. Argued November 4, 1966. Decided February 6, 1967. J.W. Alexander, Jr., Charlotte, N.C. (Ernest W. Machen, Jr., and Blakeney, Alexander Machen, Charlotte, N.C., on brief), for petitioner Overnite Transp. Co. Hugh J. Beins, Washington, D.C., (Michael F. Grdina, Willoughby, Ohio, on brief), for petitioner Teamsters Local Union No. 171. Gary Green, Atty., N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Auto Ventshade, Inc.

    276 F.2d 303 (5th Cir. 1960)   Cited 36 times

    No. 17965. March 25, 1960. Rehearing Denied July 28, 1960. Melvin Pollack, Atty., Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, A. Brummel, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Alexander E. Wilson, Jr., John W. Wilcox, Jr. (of Wilson, Branch Barwick), Atlanta, Ga., for respondent. Before RIVES, Chief Judge, and CAMERON and WISDOM, Circuit Judges. WISDOM, Circuit Judge. In this case, as in National Labor Relations

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Laystrom Manufacturing Co.

    359 F.2d 799 (7th Cir. 1966)   Cited 12 times
    In NLRB v. Laystrom Manufacturing Co., 359 F.2d 799, 800 (7th Cir. 1966), the evidence showed a narrow margin of victory by the union in an election two years earlier and high employee turnover.

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Tempest Shirt Manufacturing Company

    285 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1960)   Cited 13 times
    In NLRB v. Tempest Shirt Manufacturing Co., 285 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1960), we held, in a proceeding on petition of the Board for adjudication in civil contempt, that a successor corporation was bound by an order in a previous case against the prior corporation. It is inherent in the nature of that proceeding that the court considered that it had jurisdiction over the successorship issue and that it was proper to decide that issue within the context of a proceeding in civil contempt.