§

The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

145 N.L.R.B. 361 (N.L.R.B. 1963)
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

17 Cited authorities

  1. Jencks v. United States

    353 U.S. 657 (1957)   Cited 1,103 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants are entitled to obtain the prior statements of persons to government agents when those persons are to testify against the defendants at trial

  2. Radio Officers v. Labor Board

    347 U.S. 17 (1954)   Cited 470 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

  3. Labor Board v. Insurance Agents

    361 U.S. 477 (1960)   Cited 324 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"

  4. Retail Clerks v. Lion Dry Goods

    369 U.S. 17 (1962)   Cited 181 times
    Holding that agreements other than full-fledged collective bargaining agreements may be "contracts" within the meaning of § 301

  5. Labor Board v. Truck Drivers Union

    353 U.S. 87 (1957)   Cited 197 times
    Discussing congressional debate over the Taft-Hartley amendments of 1947

  6. Labor Board v. I. M. Electric Co.

    318 U.S. 9 (1943)   Cited 108 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Indiana Michigan Electric Co., 318 U.S. 9, at page 28, 63 S.Ct. 394, at page 405, 87 L.Ed. 579, the Supreme Court stated the general fundamental principles with respect to findings of fact by the Board, saying that the reviewing court is given discretion to see that before a party's rights are foreclosed his case has been fairly heard, and "Findings cannot be said to have been fairly reached unless material evidence which might impeach, as well as that which will support, its findings, is heard and weighed."

  7. United States v. Andolschek

    142 F.2d 503 (2d Cir. 1944)   Cited 150 times
    In United States v. Andolschek, 2 Cir., 142 F.2d 503, the Government was seeking to avoid producing records which were related to the offense.

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Capitol Fish Company

    294 F.2d 868 (5th Cir. 1961)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that the Housekeeping Statute "cannot be construed to establish authority in the executive departments to determine whether certain papers and records are privileged," nor can it "bar a judicial determination of the question of privilege or a demand for the production of evidence found not privileged"

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Adhesive Products

    258 F.2d 403 (2d Cir. 1958)   Cited 37 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Adhesive Products Corporation, 2 Cir., 258 F.2d 403, the court held that a written statement or memorandum which a witness had made prior to his testifying and from which he had refreshed his recollection should have been produced for the benefit of counsel in cross-examination.

  10. Morand Bros. Bev. Co. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    190 F.2d 576 (7th Cir. 1951)   Cited 33 times

    No. 10335. July 23, 1951. Samuel L. Golan, Chester F. McNamara, Leonard W. Golan, all of Chicago, Ill., Golan Golan, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for petitioners. David P. Findling, A. Norman Somers and Bernard Dunau, N.L.R.B., all of Washington, D.C., George J. Bott, General Counsel, Benjamin A. Theeman, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for respondent. George O. Bahrs, San Francisco, Cal., Arthur C. Rooney, Chicago, Ill., Eli E. Dorsey, Seattle, Wash., Robert P. Patterson