§

The Standard Transformer Co.

97 N.L.R.B. 669 (N.L.R.B. 1951)
The Standard Transformer Co.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath

    341 U.S. 123 (1951)   Cited 1,399 times
    Holding that plaintiff had standing for an injunction striking its name from a public list of organizations designated by the Attorney General as Communist because plaintiff alleged that the designation was erroneous and that it resulted in a laundry list of ongoing harms -- including "a multiplicity of administrative proceedings . . . to rescind licenses, franchises, or tax exemptions," and the resignation or withdrawal of its members

  2. Labor Board v. Tower Co.

    329 U.S. 324 (1946)   Cited 259 times
    Describing the Board's goals for its election rules and regulations

  3. May Stores Co. v. Labor Board

    326 U.S. 376 (1945)   Cited 257 times
    Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"

  4. Labor Board v. Highland Park Co.

    341 U.S. 322 (1951)   Cited 63 times
    In Highland it was claimed that the term "national or international labor organization" as used in the National Labor Relations Act is a technical one, meaning "union", thereby excluding the CIO, which was "a federation".

  5. Semi-Steel Casting Co. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    160 F.2d 388 (8th Cir. 1947)   Cited 44 times
    In Semi-Steel Casting Company of St. Louis v. National Labor Relations Board, 160 F.2d 388, 392, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that "* * * the union's loss of majority status, during the course of the proceedings before the Board on the charge of unfair labor practices against the company, if established, does not invalidate the order of the Board."

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sidran

    181 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1950)   Cited 30 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Sidran, 181 F.2d 671 (C.A. 5), cited by respondent, the Court could only have held that the Board erred in denying a hearing if "substantial and material factual issues" were raised.

  7. Elastic Stop Nut Corp. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    142 F.2d 371 (8th Cir. 1944)   Cited 24 times

    No. 12740. May 1, 1944. Petition to Review Order of National Labor Relations Board. Petition by the Elastic Stop Nut Corporation to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board based on the board's findings and conclusion that the petitioner was engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, wherein the board prayed for enforcement of its order. Enforcement ordered as prayed by the Board. Charles E. Whittaker, of Kansas City, Mo. (Henry

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Spiewak

    179 F.2d 695 (3d Cir. 1950)   Cited 14 times

    No. 9875. Argued March 24, 1949. Reargued May 16, 1949 and December 1, 1949. Decided February 2, 1950. Rehearing Denied March 11, 1950. Arnold Ordman, Washington, D.C. (David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Gerald H. Chambers, New York City (Chambers Chambers, New York City, on the brief), for respondents. Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and MARIS, GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN, O'CONNELL, KALODNER

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Highland Park Mfg. Co.

    184 F.2d 98 (4th Cir. 1950)   Cited 9 times

    No. 6082. Argued June 13, 1950. Decided September 2, 1950. Frederick U. Reel, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Assistant General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost and Samuel M. Singer, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner. Whiteford S. Blakeney, Charlotte, N.C. (Pierce Blakeney, Charlotte, N.C., on brief), for respondent. Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and

  10. National Labor Rel. Board v. Capitol G. Lines

    140 F.2d 754 (6th Cir. 1944)   Cited 14 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Capitol Greyhound Lines, 6 Cir., 140 F.2d 754, 759, we said: "The Supreme Court has emphasized more than once the expertness of the National Labor Relations Board in the field of labor controversy; and the Courts of Appeal have been reminded, sometimes sharply, of their curtailed power of review.