§

Rome Specialty Co., Inc.

84 N.L.R.B. 55 (N.L.R.B. 1949)
Rome Specialty Co., Inc.

5 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co.

    312 U.S. 426 (1941)   Cited 505 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the mere fact that a court has found that a defendant has committed an act in violation of a statute does not justify an injunction broadly to obey the statute"

  2. Nat. Licorice Co. v. Labor Bd.

    309 U.S. 350 (1940)   Cited 314 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that requiring employees to sign individual contracts waiving their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining violates § 8 of the NLRA

  3. 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"

  4. 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."

  5. Matter of Sewell Mfg. Co., Inc.

    195 B.R. 180 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1996)   Cited 4 times
    Rejecting PBGC's argument that Section 1341 (c) (B) of ERISA required a debtor to file a plan of reorganization and disclosure statement as a necessary prerequisite to a bankruptcy court's distress termination analysis and recognizing case law holding that "ERISA may not be interpreted so as to confound the clear intentions of the Bankruptcy Code's drafters"