5 Cited authorities
Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.
370 U.S. 9 (1962) Cited 206 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections
Labor Board v. Burnup Sims
379 U.S. 21 (1964) Cited 106 times 21 Legal AnalysesFinding violation of ยง 8 "whatever the employer's motive"
N.L.R.B. v. Jack August Enterprises, Inc.
583 F.2d 575 (1st Cir. 1978) Cited 5 timesNo. 78-1001. Argued May 2, 1978. Decided September 22, 1978. Bernard P. Jeweler, Baltimore, Md., Atty., with whom John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Carl L. Taylor, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, and William R. Stewart, Atty., Washington, D.C., were on brief, for petitioner. Richard D. Hayes, Springfield, Mass., with whom Sullivan Hayes, Springfield, Mass., was on brief, for respondent. Petition from the National Labor Relations
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hudson Motor Car
128 F.2d 528 (6th Cir. 1942) Cited 29 timesIn National Labor Relations Board v. Hudson Motor Car Co., 6 Cir., 128 F.2d 528, 533, it was stated: "We think it right and just to say that so far as the record shows, respondent has not wilfully violated the provisions of the Act, but the intent of the employer is not within the ambit of our power of review.
Duo-Bed Corporation v. N.L.R.B
337 F.2d 850 (10th Cir. 1964) Cited 5 timesNo. 7695. October 22, 1964. Gerrit H. Wormhoudt, Wichita, Kan. (Wayne Coulson, Paul R. Kitch, Dale M. Stucky, Donald R. Newkirk, Robert J. Hill, Philip Kassebaum, John E. Rees and Robert T. Cornwell, and Hugo T. Wedell, Wichita, Kan., of counsel, on the brief), for petitioner. Harold Shore, Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Melvin Pollack, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent