§

The Stride Rite Corp.

228 N.L.R.B. 224 (N.L.R.B. 1977)
The Stride Rite Corp.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,035 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  2. 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

  3. Title Guarantee Co. v. N.L.R.B

    534 F.2d 484 (2d Cir. 1976)   Cited 60 times
    Holding statements of employees and union representatives obtained in NLRB investigation exempt from disclosure under Exemption 7 until completion of administrative and judicial proceedings

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Sumter Plywood Corp.

    535 F.2d 917 (5th Cir. 1976)   Cited 41 times
    Finding that "the major concern" for the Sewell line of cases "is that workers of one race not be persuaded to vote for or against a Union on the basis of invidious prejudices they might have against individuals of another race"

  5. Climax Molybdenum Co. v. N.L.R.B

    539 F.2d 63 (10th Cir. 1976)   Cited 18 times
    In Climax Molybdenum Co. v. NLRB, 539 F.2d 63 (10th Cir. 1976), we concluded that disclosure of the material described in that case would interfere with the enforcement proceedings before the Board.

  6. Goodfriend Western Corp. v. Fuchs

    535 F.2d 145 (1st Cir. 1976)   Cited 17 times
    In Goodfriend Western Corp. v. Fuchs, 535 F.2d 145 (CA1) (per curiam), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 895, 97 S.Ct. 257, 50 L.Ed.2d 178 (1976), the First Circuit has held that it would.

  7. Pulley v. N.L.R.B

    395 F.2d 870 (6th Cir. 1968)   Cited 21 times
    Soliciting of an employee to engage in surveillance of union activities

  8. Bryant Chucking Grinder Company v. N.L.R.B

    389 F.2d 565 (2d Cir. 1967)   Cited 19 times

    No. 25, Docket 30844. Argued October 2, 1967. Decided December 12, 1967. Kenneth C. McGuiness, Washington, D.C. (Vedder, Price, Kaufman, Kammholz McGuiness, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. George B. Driesen, Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Peter Ames Eveleth, Washington, D.C., Atty., on the brief), for respondent. Before FRIENDLY, HAYS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. HAYS, Circuit

  9. Section 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

    5 U.S.C. § 552   Cited 12,414 times   559 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party