Toffenetti Restaurant Company, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

  1. Radio Officers v. Labor Board

    347 U.S. 17 (1954)   Cited 469 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
  2. Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Labor Board

    350 U.S. 270 (1956)   Cited 403 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"
  3. Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.

    351 U.S. 149 (1956)   Cited 221 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith
  4. 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"
  5. Labor Board v. Crompton Mills

    337 U.S. 217 (1949)   Cited 102 times
    Holding unlawful unilateral changes significantly different from "any which the employer has proposed" during bargaining
  6. 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"
  7. National Labor Relations Bd. v. Nash-Finch Co.

    211 F.2d 622 (8th Cir. 1954)   Cited 20 times
    In Nash-Finch the union had specifically bargained over certain benefits under a hospital insurance plan, as well as Christmas bonuses, but in final negotiation these requests were dropped and did not appear in the collective bargaining agreement.
  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Chicago Apparatus Co.

    116 F.2d 753 (7th Cir. 1941)   Cited 35 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Chicago Apparatus Co., 116 F.2d 753, 756, and National Labor Relations Board v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 204 F.2d 79, 83, cases cited and relied upon by the defendant, such a written designation had been obtained.
  9. Intermountain Equip. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    239 F.2d 480 (9th Cir. 1956)   Cited 3 times

    No. 15035. December 27, 1956. Thomas L. Smith, Boise, Idaho, Louis H. Callister and Nathan J. Fullmer, Salt Lake City, Utah, for petitioner. Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Fannie M. Boyls, Nancy M. Sherman and Arnold Ordman, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge, and MURRAY, District Judge. DENMAN, Chief Judge. The Intermountain Equipment Company, hereafter the Company, petitions for