§

Great Southern Construction, Inc.

266 N.L.R.B. 364 (N.L.R.B. 1983)
Great Southern Construction, Inc.

19 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,033 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  2. Machinists Local v. Labor Board

    362 U.S. 411 (1960)   Cited 276 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely

  3. Garment Workers v. Labor Board

    366 U.S. 731 (1961)   Cited 213 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union cannot represent a group of employees for which it does not enjoy majority support

  4. Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator of the Wage & Hour Division of the Department of Labor

    312 U.S. 126 (1941)   Cited 371 times
    Finding an intelligible principle because, in addition to requiring the executive to consider certain "factors," the law required "basic facts to be ascertained administratively"

  5. Dallas County v. Commercial Union Assu. Co.

    286 F.2d 388 (5th Cir. 1961)   Cited 152 times
    Holding that a fifty-eight-year-old newspaper article describing a contemporaneous fire in the clock tower of a courthouse, which article did not fall under a recognized hearsay exception, was nonetheless admissible where that account was trustworthy, necessary, relevant, and material to the issue of whether lightning caused the tower to collapse

  6. J.P. Stevens Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    461 F.2d 490 (4th Cir. 1972)   Cited 60 times
    Inquiring whether substantial evidence supported a finding that a benefit announcement was timed to "give [employees] cause to infer that the benefit might be withdrawn or future benefits withheld should they select a union to represent them"

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Rich's Precision Foundry, Inc.

    667 F.2d 613 (7th Cir. 1981)   Cited 32 times
    Finding Board's consideration of post-termination conduct proper

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Capitol Fish Company

    294 F.2d 868 (5th Cir. 1961)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that the Housekeeping Statute "cannot be construed to establish authority in the executive departments to determine whether certain papers and records are privileged," nor can it "bar a judicial determination of the question of privilege or a demand for the production of evidence found not privileged"

  9. Associated Gen. Contractors, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    564 F.2d 271 (9th Cir. 1977)   Cited 20 times
    In Associated General Contractors v. NLRB, 564 F.2d 271 (9th Cir. 1977), the major parties herein litigated the issue of whether owner-operators were employees under § 2(3) of the NLRA.

  10. Teamsters Local U. 769 v. N.L.R.B

    532 F.2d 1385 (D.C. Cir. 1976)   Cited 19 times

    No. 75-1250. Argued January 13, 1976. Decided April 8, 1976. Rehearing Denied May 13, 1976. Seymour A. Gopman, North Miami Beach, Fla., for petitioner. William T. Coleman, Jr., Miami, Fla., was on the brief for petitioner. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., with whom John C. Miller, Acting Gen. Counsel and John S. Irving, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were on the brief for respondent. Jesse S. Hogg, Coral Gables, Fla., with whom W. Reynolds