§

Howell Chevrolet Co.

95 N.L.R.B. 410 (N.L.R.B. 1951)
Howell Chevrolet Co.

4 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board

    185 F.2d 732 (D.C. Cir. 1950)   Cited 162 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Joy Silk the Court held that when an employer could have no doubt as to the majority status or when an employer refuses recognition of a union "due to a desire to gain time and to take action to dissipate the union's majority, the refusal is no longer justifiable and constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain set forth in section 8(a)(5) of the Act".

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

    185 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1950)   Cited 30 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Townsend, 9 Cir., 185 F.2d 378, this court found jurisdiction in respect to the activities of a local Hudson automobile dealer where it appeared that while the respondent, operating at Santa Maria, California, purchased all of his new automobiles from the Hudson Sales Corporation at Los Angeles, yet the latter organization shipped all of such automobiles into the State from outside points.

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Everett Van Kleeck

    189 F.2d 516 (2d Cir. 1951)   Cited 3 times

    No. 202, Docket 21903. Argued May 8, 1951. Decided May 31, 1951. George P. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Assistant General Counsel, Harvey B. Diamond and George H. Plaut, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner. Adolph Bangser, New York City, for respondent. Before SWAN, AUGUSTUS N. HAND and CLARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. The decision and order under review affirms the Trial Examiner's conclusion