§
Sunbeam Corp.

5 Cited authorities

  1. N.L.R.B. v. Greensboro Coca Cola Bottling Co.

    180 F.2d 840 (4th Cir. 1950)   Cited 35 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Greensboro Coca Cola Bottling Co., 4 Cir., 180 F.2d 840, 844, similar contentions were considered and determined.

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wiltse

    188 F.2d 917 (6th Cir. 1951)   Cited 27 times

    No. 11128. Decided March 23, 1951. As Amended on Rehearing June 1, 1951. Duane Beeson, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, David P. Findling, A. Norman Somers, Bernard Dunau, and Duane Beeson, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. George Meader, Washington, D.C. (George Meader, Washington, D.C., John S. Dobson, Ann Arbor, Mich., on the brief), for respondent. Before SIMONS, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges. McALLISTER, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board filed its petition

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Vulcan Forging Co.

    188 F.2d 927 (6th Cir. 1951)   Cited 25 times
    In NLRB v. Vulcan Forging Co., 188 F.2d 927 (6th Cir. 1951), the court held that in determining whether the NLRB had jurisdiction over a company which sold all of its output to Ford Motor Company, judicial notice could be taken of the interstate activities of Ford.

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Red Rock Co.

    187 F.2d 76 (5th Cir. 1951)   Cited 17 times

    No. 13375. February 15, 1951. Rehearing Denied March 9, 1951. Bernard Dunau, Atty., A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, and David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D.C., for petitioner. M.E. Kilpatrick, Atlanta, Georgia, for respondents. Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and McCORD and BORAH, Circuit Judges. HUTCHESON, Chief Judge. In its general aspects this is an ordinary proceeding by the Board for the enforcement of one of its remedial

  5. National Labor Rel. Board v. Dalton Tel. Co.

    187 F.2d 811 (5th Cir. 1951)   Cited 14 times
    In Dalton Telephone, however, the court strongly suggested that the company's insistence on the union registration was simply a ploy to avoid reducing to writing an agreement to which the parties had already agreed.