§

Tidewater Express Lines, Inc.

32 N.L.R.B. 792 (N.L.R.B. 1941)
Tidewater Express Lines, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co.

    311 U.S. 584 (1941)   Cited 338 times
    Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"

  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 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'.

  4. H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 514 (1941)   Cited 241 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.

  5. Labor Board v. Bradford Dyeing Assn

    310 U.S. 318 (1940)   Cited 150 times
    Construing "affecting commerce"

  6. 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.

  7. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    112 F.2d 657 (2d Cir. 1940)   Cited 34 times
    In Westinghouse Electric Mfg. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 112 F.2d 657, 660, a disestablishment order was sustained in a much weaker case than the present.