The Circle K Corp.

7 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Columbian Co.
306 U.S. 292 (1939) Cited 994 times
Defining substantial evidence
Filler Products, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
376 F.2d 369 (4th Cir. 1967) Cited 22 times
In Filler Products Inc. v. NLRB, 376 F.2d 369, 378 n. 3 (4th Cir. 1967), the court reiterated that "[o]ne of the established ways to determine in disputed cases when an employee is discharged is to ascertain when he was replaced."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Purity Food Stores
376 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1967) Cited 20 times
In Purity Food Stores there were seven supermarkets — employing about 400 employees — all located north of Boston within a 30-mile radius of the company's central office with frequent interchanges of employees.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
346 F.2d 936 (5th Cir. 1965) Cited 17 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co., 346 F.2d 936, 939 (5th Cir. 1965), the court stated, "When the General Counsel charges that an employer has committed an unfair labor practice, he must produce substantial evidence from which it may be inferred that a violation of the Act took place.
N.L.R.B. v. Purity Food Stores, Inc.
354 F.2d 926 (1st Cir. 1965) Cited 11 times
No. 6582. Heard November 1, 1965. Decided December 30, 1965. Glen M. Bendixsen, Washington, D.C., Attorney, with whom Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Allen M. Hutter, Attorney, were on brief, for petitioner. Allan A. Tepper, Boston, Mass., with whom Snyder, Tepper, Berlin Katz, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for respondent. Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, and HASTIE and McENTEE, Circuit Judges. By designation
N.L.R.B. v. Better Val-U Stores of Mansfield
401 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1968) Cited 6 times
No. 509, Docket 32009. Argued June 4, 1968. Decided September 10, 1968. Fred R. Kimmel, Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Andrew Brand, Charles Suisman, Suisman, Shapiro, Wool, Brennan Gray, New London, Conn., for respondent. Before WATERMAN and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges, and ZAMPANO, District Judge. Of the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation
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"

The Circle K Corp.

7 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Columbian Co.

Defining substantial evidence

Filler Products, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

In Filler Products Inc. v. NLRB, 376 F.2d 369, 378 n. 3 (4th Cir. 1967), the court reiterated that "[o]ne of the established ways to determine in disputed cases when an employee is discharged is to ascertain when he was replaced."

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Purity Food Stores

In Purity Food Stores there were seven supermarkets — employing about 400 employees — all located north of Boston within a 30-mile radius of the company's central office with frequent interchanges of employees.

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

In N.L.R.B. v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co., 346 F.2d 936, 939 (5th Cir. 1965), the court stated, "When the General Counsel charges that an employer has committed an unfair labor practice, he must produce substantial evidence from which it may be inferred that a violation of the Act took place.

N.L.R.B. v. Purity Food Stores, Inc.

N.L.R.B. v. Better Val-U Stores of Mansfield

Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy

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"