ยง
Unijax Corp.

8 Cited authorities

  1. N.L.R.B. v. Dorn's Transportation Company

    405 F.2d 706 (2d Cir. 1969)   Cited 40 times
    Noting that "a good faith effort to conform to the requirements of the law" would be a legal motivation for withholding benefits

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Whitin Mach. Works

    204 F.2d 883 (1st Cir. 1953)   Cited 57 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Whitin Machine Works, 204 F.2d 883 (1st Cir.1953), for example, an assistant supervisor in his employer's accounting department was, upon a consideration of the nature of his work, determined not to be a supervisor for purposes of litigating his discharge from employment, and, therefore, he was entitled to the protections of the National Labor Relations Act. 204 F.2d at 886.

  3. Betts Baking Co. v. N.L.R.B

    380 F.2d 199 (10th Cir. 1967)   Cited 32 times

    No. 8813. May 26, 1967. William G. Haynes, Topeka, Kan. (O.B. Eidson, Philip H. Lewis, James W. Porter, Charles S. Fisher, Jr., Charles N. Henson, Peter F. Caldwell, R. Austin Northern, Roscoe E. Long and Brock R. Snyder, Topeka, Kan., on brief), for petitioner. Morton Namrow, Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli, Marcel Mallet-Prevost and Warren M. Davison, Washington, D.C., on brief), for respondent. Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, HICKEY, Circuit Judge, and CHRISTENSEN, District Judge

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Joseph Antell, Inc.

    358 F.2d 880 (1st Cir. 1966)   Cited 26 times
    In Antell, the court stated that the smallness of a plant, or a staff, may be material as bearing on the knowledge on the part of the employer of an employee's union activities, but only to the extent that it may be shown to have made it likely that the employer observed, or otherwise learned about the activity in question.

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Pembeck Oil Corp.

    404 F.2d 105 (2d Cir. 1968)   Cited 16 times
    In Pembeck, decided after Better Val-U Stores, Judge Hays again dissented, pointing out that neither Flomatic nor Val-U Stores had reached to ยง 8(a)(5) cases and urging that the "flagrant violation" standard not be extended to such cases.

  6. Wonder State Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B

    331 F.2d 737 (6th Cir. 1964)   Cited 13 times

    No. 15390. April 2, 1964. V. Lee McMahon, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner. McMahon Zempel, St. Louis, Mo., of counsel. Jules H. Gordon, Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent. Before PHILLIPS and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge. PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge. This case is before the Court upon the petition

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Mira-Pak, Inc.

    354 F.2d 525 (5th Cir. 1966)   Cited 9 times

    No. 22142. December 29, 1965. Rehearing Denied February 7, 1966. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott C. Lichtman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Gary Green, Wayne S. Bishop, Attys., N.L.R.B., for petitioner. James E. Crowther, Houston, Tex., Butler, Binion, Rice, Cook Knapp, Houston, Tex., of counsel, for respondent. Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and HUTCHESON and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges. TUTTLE, Chief Judge:

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Kay Electronics, Inc.

    410 F.2d 499 (8th Cir. 1969)   Cited 3 times

    No. 19377. April 30, 1969. Baruch A. Fellner, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Richard S. Rodin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were with him on the brief. Richard W. Miller, Kansas City, for respondent; George T. O'Laughlin, Phil A. Koury, Patrick D. McAnany, and James W. Jeans, Kansas City, Mo., were with him on the brief. Before MATTHES