11 Cited authorities
Interstate Circuit v. U.S.
306 U.S. 208 (1939) Cited 512 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding proof of an explicit agreement unnecessary to establish antitrust conspiracy among movie distributors where, "knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it"
Hugh H. Wilson Corporation v. N.L.R.B
414 F.2d 1345 (3d Cir. 1969) Cited 37 timesFinding concerted activity because "[i]n substance, the employees had a gripe. They assembled. They presented their grievance to management. . . ."
Ohio Power Co. v. N.L.R.B
176 F.2d 385 (6th Cir. 1949) Cited 64 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that plain and unambiguous text must be applied as written without resort to construction
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ferguson
257 F.2d 88 (5th Cir. 1958) Cited 38 timesNo. 16973. June 30, 1958. Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. George E. Seay, Ralph W. Malone, Malone, Lipscomb Seay, Dallas, Tex., for respondent. Before TUTTLE, BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges. JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge. This is a Petition by the Board for enforcement of an Order, 118 N.L.R.B. No. 30, finding the Employer, Shovel Supply Company, guilty of 8(a)(1), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1), violations and requiring the reinstatement of four
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. S. Bleachery
257 F.2d 235 (4th Cir. 1958) Cited 33 times 1 Legal AnalysesStating that the essential inquiry is whether the employer shares the power of management
Allegheny Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. N.L.R.B
312 F.2d 529 (3d Cir. 1962) Cited 21 timesNo. 13960. Argued November 2, 1962. Decided December 26, 1962. Robert Lewis, New York City, (Jackson Lewis, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner. Standau E. Weinbrecht, Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Melvin J. Welles, Nancy M. Sherman, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, on the brief), for respondent. Before KALODNER, STALEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. STALEY, Circuit Judge
Red Star Exp. Lines v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
196 F.2d 78 (2d Cir. 1952) Cited 34 timesIn Red Star Express Lines v. National Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 196 F.2d 78, the court condemned the contract although the so-called general savings clause provided that any specific provision which was even "affected" by Taft-Hartley was to be without effect.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wallick
198 F.2d 477 (3d Cir. 1952) Cited 27 timesIn N.L.R.B. v. Wallick, 198 F.2d 477 (3 Cir. 1952), that court sustained a Board order requiring a respondent partnership which operated several enterprises engaged in the manufacture of ladies' garments to either reopen a plant which it had closed in violation of the Act because its employees had organized or give its employees an opportunity to work in other plants operated by the partnership.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Elec. City Dyeing
178 F.2d 980 (3d Cir. 1950) Cited 20 timesIn NLRB v. Electric City Dyeing Co., 178 F.2d 980 (3d Cir. 1950), this court had occasion to rule on a comparable situation where the employer alleged that certain employees were discharged for unsatisfactory work whereas the Board made a finding, in which we concurred, that the dismissals were for union activity.
District 2, Mar. Eng. v. Natl. Lab. Rel. Bd.
353 F.2d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1965) Cited 1 timesNo. 19317. Argued October 21, 1965. Decided November 18, 1965. Mr. David Scribner, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Lee Pressman, New York City, was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Warren M. Laddon, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Mrs. Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., National