Keystone Steel & Wire Co.

7 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. Virginia Electric Co. v. Board

    319 U.S. 533 (1943)   Cited 325 times
    Stating that the purpose of the Act is to encourage and protect "full freedom of association for workers"
  3. Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co.

    311 U.S. 584 (1941)   Cited 338 times
    Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"
  4. I.A. of M. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 72 (1940)   Cited 316 times
    In International Ass'n of Machinists v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 311 U.S. 72, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L. Ed. 50, there had been a long history of management favoritism to the established and hostility to the aspiring union; and in Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 1944, 321 U.S. 702, 703, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818, 88 L.Ed. 1020, the employer had "conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the union won the election."
  5. Labor Bd. v. Greyhound Lines

    303 U.S. 261 (1938)   Cited 264 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.
  6. Labor Board v. Newport News Co.

    308 U.S. 241 (1939)   Cited 119 times
    Upholding finding of domination where company determined structure of organization and could choose whether to adopt recommendations
  7. Labor Bd. v. Pacific Lines

    303 U.S. 272 (1938)   Cited 42 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 303 U.S. 272, 58 S.Ct. 577, 82 L.Ed. 838, given on the same day, reversing our decision, the opinion does not mention the fact appearing in our opinion (page 460, 91 F.2d 458) that "The Drivers' Association was not made a party to the proceedings" and "was not notified of the hearing."