§

The Stanley Works

108 N.L.R.B. 734 (N.L.R.B. 1954)
The Stanley Works

8 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. American Ins. Co.

    343 U.S. 395 (1952)   Cited 269 times
    Holding the degree of discretion in a CBA "is an issue for determination across the bargaining table, not by the Board"

  2. Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    321 U.S. 678 (1944)   Cited 269 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8

  3. Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Rel. Board

    170 F.2d 247 (7th Cir. 1949)   Cited 156 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Accepting the Board's conclusion "that the term `wages' . . . must be construed to include emoluments of value, like pension and insurance benefits, which may accrue to employees out of their employment relationship"

  4. W.W. Cross Co. v. National Labor Rel. Board

    174 F.2d 875 (1st Cir. 1949)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that " 'wages' " in the NLRA "embraces within its meaning direct and immediate economic benefits flowing from the employment relationship covers a group insurance program"

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Niles-Bement-Pond

    199 F.2d 713 (2d Cir. 1952)   Cited 20 times
    Upholding a Board finding that a Christmas bonus paid "over a substantial period of time and in amount . . . based on the respective wages earned by the recipients" were "wages"

  6. National Labor Rel. Board v. Black-Clawson Co.

    210 F.2d 523 (6th Cir. 1954)   Cited 14 times
    In NLRB v. Hearst Publications, supra, we sustained the Board's finding that newsboys were "employees" rather than independent contractors.

  7. Reynolds Metals Co. v. Skinner

    166 F.2d 66 (6th Cir. 1948)   Cited 15 times
    In Reynolds Metals Co. v. Skinner and Bradley, 166 F.2d 66 (6th Cir. 1948) the court even refused to enforce an express contract against reuse of plant processes — a factor not present in the instant case — when the process was generally known, since "[O]therwise the monopoly of the patent law would be extended with disastrous effect."

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Rozelle Shoe Corp.

    205 F.2d 447 (1st Cir. 1953)   Cited 2 times

    No. 4714. June 29, 1953. Nancy M. Sherman, Attorney, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, and Fannie M. Boyls, Attorney, Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner. James D. Hughes, Boston, Mass. (Vernon C. Stoneman and Louis Chandler, Boston, Mass., on brief), for respondent. Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges. WOODBURY, Circuit Judge. Two questions are presented