§

Sun-Maid Growers Of California

239 N.L.R.B. 346 (N.L.R.B. 1978)
Sun-Maid Growers Of California

8 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Columbian Co.

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

  2. Herbert Harvey, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    424 F.2d 770 (D.C. Cir. 1969)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that Board clearly had statutory jurisdiction over government contractor qua government contractor, but noting that Board "has traditionally reserved a discretion to decline jurisdiction in particular cases where it believes the policies of the Act will not be effectuated by an exercise of its authority"

  3. Ref-Chem Company v. N.L.R.B

    418 F.2d 127 (5th Cir. 1969)   Cited 17 times
    Finding there was substantial evidence to justify the conclusion that a joint employer relationship existed in a case in which the alleged joint employer contractually had the "right to approve employees, control the number of employees, have an employee removed, inspect and approve work, pass on changes in pay and overtime allowed."

  4. Alaska Roughnecks Drillers Ass'n v. N.L.R.B

    555 F.2d 732 (9th Cir. 1977)   Cited 7 times
    Discussing Ace-Alkire, 431 F.2d at 282.

  5. 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

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. New Madrid Mfg. Co.

    215 F.2d 908 (8th Cir. 1954)   Cited 25 times
    In New Madrid the business was transferred to a new employer, which was held liable for the unfair labor practices committed by its predecessor before closing.

  7. Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy

    29 U.S.C. § 151   Cited 5,092 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

  8. Section 102.63 - Investigation of petition by Regional Director; Notice of Hearing; service of notice; Notice of Petition for Election; Statement of Position; withdrawal of Notice of Hearing

    29 C.F.R. § 102.63   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)Investigation; Notice of Hearing; notice of petition for election. (1) After a petition has been filed under § 102.61(a), (b) , or (c), if no agreement such as that provided in § 102.62 is entered into and if it appears to the Regional Director that there is reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation affecting commerce exists, that the policies of the Act will be effectuated, and that an election will reflect the free choice of employees in an appropriate unit, the Regional