§
The Texas Co.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Laughlin

    301 U.S. 1 (1937)   Cited 1,499 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis

  2. I.A. of M. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 72 (1940)   Cited 317 times
    In International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L. Ed. 50, there had been a long history of management favoritism to the established and hostility to the aspiring union; and in Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. 702, 703, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818, 88 L.Ed. 1020, the employer had "conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the union won the election."

  3. Labor Board v. Fansteel Corp.

    306 U.S. 240 (1939)   Cited 281 times
    In Fansteel, the Board awarded reinstatement with backpay to employees who engaged in a "sit down strike" that led to confrontation with local law enforcement officials.

  4. Labor Bd. v. Greyhound Lines

    303 U.S. 261 (1938)   Cited 264 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.

  5. Labor Board v. Falk Corp.

    308 U.S. 453 (1940)   Cited 140 times
    In Falk, the two proceedings were held simultaneously, whereas in our case the representation case preceded the unfair labor case.

  6. Labor Board v. Newport News Co.

    308 U.S. 241 (1939)   Cited 119 times
    Upholding finding of domination where company determined structure of organization and could choose whether to adopt recommendations

  7. Labor Bd. v. Pacific Lines

    303 U.S. 272 (1938)   Cited 42 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 303 U.S. 272, 58 S.Ct. 577, 82 L.Ed. 838, given on the same day, reversing our decision, the opinion does not mention the fact appearing in our opinion (page 460, 91 F.2d 458) that "The Drivers' Association was not made a party to the proceedings" and "was not notified of the hearing."