§

Vermeer Manufacturing Co.

187 N.L.R.B. 888 (N.L.R.B. 1971)
Vermeer Manufacturing Co.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Interstate Circuit v. U.S.

    306 U.S. 208 (1939)   Cited 512 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding proof of an explicit agreement unnecessary to establish antitrust conspiracy among movie distributors where, "knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it"

  2. Labor Board v. Steelworkers

    357 U.S. 357 (1958)   Cited 72 times
    In United Steelworkers, the Court warned that the NLRA "does not command that labor organizations as a matter of abstract law, under all circumstances, be protected in the use of every possible means of reaching the minds of individual workers, nor that they are entitled to use a medium of communication simply because the employer is using it."

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. McGahey

    233 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1956)   Cited 133 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. McGahey, 233 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1956), this court described casual and moderate inquiries, even as to union preference, absent evidence indicating that the employee has reason to consider the inquiries a threat of reprisals, as not constituting an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8(a)(1).

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Solo Cup Company

    237 F.2d 521 (8th Cir. 1956)   Cited 40 times

    No. 15524. October 18, 1956. Rehearing Denied November 16, 1956. Samuel M. Singer, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Nancy M. Sherman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were with him on the brief), for petitioner. John J. Hasburgh, Kansas City, Mo. (Carl E. Enggas and Watson S. Marshall Enggas, Kansas City, Mo., were with him on the brief), for respondent. Before WOODROUGH

  5. Maphis Chapman Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    368 F.2d 298 (4th Cir. 1966)   Cited 22 times

    No. 9920. Argued October 5, 1965. Decided November 2, 1966. James A. Harper, Jr., Richmond, Va. (Francis V. Lowden, Jr., and Hunton, Williams, Gay, Powell Gibson, Richmond, Va., on brief), for petitioner. Paul M. Thompson, Atty., National Labor Relations Board (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Gary Green, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, on brief), for respondent. Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Company

    293 F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1961)   Cited 23 times
    In Atlanta Coca-Cola, for example, the court was concerned with the General Counsel's failure to produce evidence of discriminatory intent as to each of the individual employees, rather than with the placement of the burden of persuasion. See, e. g., 293 F.2d at 309 ("This is not a case where conflicting inferences of equal weight may be drawn from the record.")

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Newman-Green, Inc.

    401 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1968)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that no substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of anti-union animus where the employee, who had been repeatedly disciplined for coming to work under the influence of alcohol, was fired for drunkenness

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Agawam Food Mart, Inc.

    424 F.2d 1045 (1st Cir. 1970)   Cited 4 times

    No. 7436. April 21, 1970. Herman M. Levy, Washington, D.C., Atty., with whom Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Sanford H. Fisher, Washington, D.C., Atty., were on brief for petitioner. David M. Marshall, Springfield, Mass., with whom Arthur M. Marshall, Richard B. Slosberg, and Marshall Marshall, Springfield, Mass., were on brief for respondent. Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, COFFIN, Circuit Judge, and BOWNES, District

  9. Mohland v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    422 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1970)

    No. 24128. February 20, 1970. Herman Mohland, in pro. per. William H. Carder (argued), Warren M. Davidson, Attys., Marcel Mallet Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D.C., Garlington, Lohn Robinson, Missoula, Mont., for appellee. Before BARNES, MERRILL and CARTER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This petition for review is back before us following our earlier remand to the Board for consideration of a specific point not theretofore considered. Mohland v. NLRB, 394 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1968).

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dant

    207 F.2d 165 (9th Cir. 1953)   Cited 9 times

    No. 12985. September 15, 1953. George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Asst. Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Norton J. Come, Morris A. Solomon, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Raymond S. Smathurst, Washington, D.C., J.P. Stirling, Roscoe Watts, John T. Casey, Portland, Or., for appellee. Before HEALY, BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges. ORR, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board, hereafter the Board, requests enforcement