The Jeffrey Manufacturing Co.

30 Cited authorities

Pittsburgh Glass Co. v. Board
313 U.S. 146 (1941) Cited 294 times
In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Golden Age Beverage Co.
415 F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969) Cited 95 times
In NLRB v. Golden Age Beverage Company, 415 F.2d 26, 30 (5th Cir. 1969), this court apparently considered hearsay evidence at this stage of proceedings to set aside an election.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bata Shoe Co.
377 F.2d 821 (4th Cir. 1967) Cited 65 times
In NLRB v. Bata Shoe Co., 377 F.2d 821 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 917, 88 S.Ct. 238, 19 L.Ed.2d 265 (1967), upon which Randall relies, the employer presented specific evidence of more severe procedural irregularities that demonstrably affected the election results.
N.L.R.B. v. Air Ctrl. Prod. of St. Petersburg
335 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1964) Cited 54 times
No. 21017. July 28, 1964. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Lawrence Gold, Atty., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Stephen B. Goldberg, Paula Omansky, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Harrison C. Thompson, Jr., Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings, Glos Evans, Tampa, Fla., for respondent. Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, BROWN, Circuit Judge, and BREWSTER, District Judge. JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge. This is another § 8(a)(5), 29
N.L.R.B. v. O.K. Van Storage, Inc.
297 F.2d 74 (5th Cir. 1961) Cited 50 times
In NLRB v. O.K. Van Storage, Inc., (5 Cir. 1961) 297 F.2d 74, 76, the necessity for granting a hearing on objections to an election was under consideration.
Amalgamated Clothing Wkrs. of Am. v. N.L.R.B
424 F.2d 818 (D.C. Cir. 1970) Cited 36 times
Affirming Board determination that employer's evidence was not new because "no explanation was offered as to why this evidence was not discovered or could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mar Salle, Inc.
425 F.2d 566 (D.C. Cir. 1970) Cited 22 times
No. 22621. Argued September 17, 1969. Decided February 18, 1970. Mrs. Abigail Cooley Baskir, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, were on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. John K. Pickens, Alexandria, Va., for respondent. Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and TAMM and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. TAMM, Circuit Judge: This case comes before
Intertype Company v. N.L.R.B
401 F.2d 41 (4th Cir. 1968) Cited 23 times
No. 11561. Argued April 2, 1968. Decided August 23, 1968. Certiorari Denied January 20, 1969. See 89 S.Ct. 686. Kenneth C. McGuiness, Washington, D.C. (Vedder, Price, Kaufman, Kammholz McGuiness, Washington, D.C., and Flournoy L. Largent, Jr., Winchester, Va., on brief), for petitioner. Allison W. Brown, Jr., Atty., N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and William J. Avrutis, Atty., N.L.R.B., on brief), for respondent
Follett Corporation v. N.L.R.B
397 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1968) Cited 20 times
No. 16221. June 10, 1968. Robert C. Claus, James S. Petrie, John P. Jacoby, Chicago, Ill., Vedder, Price, Kaufman Kammholz, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for petitioners. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, George B. Driesen, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Fred R. Kimmel, Atty., N.L.R.B., for respondent. Before CASTLE, Chief Judge, and SWYGERT and CUMMINGS, Circuit Judges. SWYGERT, Circuit Judge. Follett Corporation
N.L.R.B. v. Union Brothers, Inc.
403 F.2d 883 (4th Cir. 1968) Cited 17 times
In National Labor Relations Board v. Union Bros., Inc., 403 F.2d 883 (4th Cir. 1968), the court upheld the granting by the NLRB of a motion for summary judgment (analogous to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the PUC) with respect to a complaint of an unfair labor practice.
Section 159 - Representatives and elections
29 U.S.C. § 159 Cited 2,450 times 12 Legal Analyses
Granting a bargaining unit the exclusive right to represent employees in it

The Jeffrey Manufacturing Co.

30 Cited authorities

In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.

In NLRB v. Golden Age Beverage Company, 415 F.2d 26, 30 (5th Cir. 1969), this court apparently considered hearsay evidence at this stage of proceedings to set aside an election.

In NLRB v. Bata Shoe Co., 377 F.2d 821 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 917, 88 S.Ct. 238, 19 L.Ed.2d 265 (1967), upon which Randall relies, the employer presented specific evidence of more severe procedural irregularities that demonstrably affected the election results.

In NLRB v. O.K. Van Storage, Inc., (5 Cir. 1961) 297 F.2d 74, 76, the necessity for granting a hearing on objections to an election was under consideration.

Affirming Board determination that employer's evidence was not new because "no explanation was offered as to why this evidence was not discovered or could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence"

In National Labor Relations Board v. Union Bros., Inc., 403 F.2d 883 (4th Cir. 1968), the court upheld the granting by the NLRB of a motion for summary judgment (analogous to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the PUC) with respect to a complaint of an unfair labor practice.

Granting a bargaining unit the exclusive right to represent employees in it