Synergy Gas Corp.

6 Cited authorities

  1. N.L.R.B. v. Mastro Plastics Corporation

    354 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1965)   Cited 96 times
    In Mastro, the relatives of two deceased discriminatees had testified as to the discriminatees' diligent searches for work.
  2. N.L.R.B. v. Brown Root, Inc.

    311 F.2d 447 (8th Cir. 1963)   Cited 71 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Brown Root, Inc., 311 F.2d 447, 454 (C.A. 8), it is said that "in a back pay proceeding the burden is upon the General Counsel to show the gross amounts of back pay due.
  3. J. H. RUTTER REX MFG. CO., INC. v. N.L.R.B

    473 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1973)   Cited 43 times
    In J.H. Rutter Rex Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 473 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1973), a group of claimants had worked at lower paying jobs following their unlawful discharges.
  4. N.L.R.B. v. Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Company

    360 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. 1966)   Cited 51 times
    Permitting "non-deduction of supplemental earnings . . . where an employee who had spare-time earnings prior to discharge from his regular job continued in the same spare-time job during his period of discharge," and further holding that as long as employee was "moonlighting before his unlawful discharge," amounts earned in any "spare time employment" should not be used to reduce back-pay award
  5. N.L.R.B. v. Mooney Aircraft, Inc.

    366 F.2d 809 (5th Cir. 1966)   Cited 23 times

    No. 19448. September 30, 1966. Melvin J. Welles, Paul Elkind, Robert B. Schwartz, Attys., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Hal Rachal, Midland, Tex., for respondent. Before WISDOM and THORNBERRY, Circuit Judges, and COX, District Judge. William Harold Cox, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation. WISDOM, Circuit Judge: We hope that this opinion proves

  6. National Labor Rel. Board v. Cashman Auto Co.

    223 F.2d 832 (1st Cir. 1955)   Cited 20 times
    In NLRB v. Cashman Auto Co., 223 F.2d 832, 836 (1st Cir. 1955), the First Circuit noted, over half a century ago, that the principle of mitigation of damages does not require success; it only requires an honest good faith effort by the complaining party.