§

Colonial Shirt Corp.

96 N.L.R.B. 711 (N.L.R.B. 1951)
Colonial Shirt Corp.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board

    324 U.S. 793 (1945)   Cited 494 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

  2. Wallace Corp. v. Labor Board

    323 U.S. 248 (1944)   Cited 162 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that corporation committed unfair labor practice

  3. Labor Board v. I. M. Electric Co.

    318 U.S. 9 (1943)   Cited 108 times
    In N.L.R.B. v. Indiana Michigan Electric Co., 318 U.S. 9, at page 28, 63 S.Ct. 394, at page 405, 87 L.Ed. 579, the Supreme Court stated the general fundamental principles with respect to findings of fact by the Board, saying that the reviewing court is given discretion to see that before a party's rights are foreclosed his case has been fairly heard, and "Findings cannot be said to have been fairly reached unless material evidence which might impeach, as well as that which will support, its findings, is heard and weighed."

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Universal Camera

    190 F.2d 429 (2d Cir. 1951)   Cited 52 times

    No. 21395. Argued June 14, 1951. Decided July 13, 1951. Before SWAN, Chief Judge, and FRANK and L. HAND, Circuit Judges. Mozart G. Ratner, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner. Frederick R. Livingston, New York City, for the respondent. L. HAND, Circuit Judge. By a divided vote we decided this appeal last year upon the same record that is now before us, holding that the Board's order should be "enforced." The Supreme Court vacated our order and remanded the cause to us for reconsideration in two

  5. Consumers Power Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    113 F.2d 38 (6th Cir. 1940)   Cited 56 times
    In Consumers Power Co. v. N.L.R.B., 6 Cir., 113 F.2d 38, 41, we considered and rejected the argument that no immediate and direct effect upon interstate commerce follows a labor controversy which curtails the employer's activity when its products are sold to an intervening private agency over whom the employer has no authority or control. It was said in Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 59 S.Ct. 206, 214, 83 L. Ed. 126, "it is the effect upon interstate or foreign commerce, not the source of the injury, which is the criterion."

  6. Kansas Milling Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    185 F.2d 413 (10th Cir. 1950)   Cited 36 times

    No. 4036. November 9, 1950. Rehearing Denied December 11, 1950. George Siefkin, Wichita, Kan. (Carl T. Smith, Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for petitioner. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C. (David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Assistant General Counsel, Washington D.C., and Leonard S. Kimmell, Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for respondent. Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and PICKETT, Circuit Judges. HUXMAN, Circuit Judge. This case is here on the petition of the Kansas Milling

  7. National Labor Bd. v. Lake Superior Lumber

    167 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1948)   Cited 36 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Lake Superior Lumber Corp., 6 Cir., 167 F.2d 147, 151, this court, in considering a similar contention, referred to the language of the Supreme Court in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265, to the following effect: "`We do not agree that the corporation's property interests settle the question.

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Westex Boot & Shoe Co.

    190 F.2d 12 (5th Cir. 1951)   Cited 19 times

    No. 13402. June 25, 1951. Maurice Alexandre, Atty., A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Lee Sellers, Otis E. Nelson, Wichita Falls, Tex., for respondent. Before McCORD, RUSSELL and RIVES, Circuit Judges. RIVES, Circuit Judge. The findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of the Board are reported at 82 N.L.R.B. 497. The Company contends that the American Federation of Labor (referred