§

Wood Manufacturing Co.

95 N.L.R.B. 633 (N.L.R.B. 1951)
Wood Manufacturing Co.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Columbian Co.

    306 U.S. 292 (1939)   Cited 993 times
    Defining substantial evidence

  2. 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"

  3. Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board

    321 U.S. 702 (1944)   Cited 251 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.

  4. Kansas Milling Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    185 F.2d 413 (10th Cir. 1950)   Cited 36 times

    No. 4036. November 9, 1950. Rehearing Denied December 11, 1950. George Siefkin, Wichita, Kan. (Carl T. Smith, Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for petitioner. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C. (David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Assistant General Counsel, Washington D.C., and Leonard S. Kimmell, Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for respondent. Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and PICKETT, Circuit Judges. HUXMAN, Circuit Judge. This case is here on the petition of the Kansas Milling

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Clausen

    188 F.2d 439 (3d Cir. 1951)   Cited 23 times

    No. 10374. Argued March 6, 1951. Filed April 2, 1951. Rehearing Denied June 8, 1951. George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel (Fannie M. Boyls, and Samuel M. Singer, all of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for National Labor Relations Board. Irving Herman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Conrad A. Falvello, Hazelton, Pa., for respondent. Rocco C. Falvello, Hazleton, Pa., on the brief, for respondent-appellee. Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sifers

    171 F.2d 63 (10th Cir. 1948)   Cited 7 times

    No. 3671. November 29, 1948. On Petition for Enforcement of Order of National Relations Board. Petition by National Labor Relations Board against Earl I. Sifers, doing business as Sifers Candy Company, to enforce an order. Order enforced. Herman J. De Koven, of Chicago, Ill. (David P. Findling and Ruth Weyand, both of Washington, D.C., and Samuel M. Kaynard, of New York City, on the brief), for petitioner. Howard M. Immel, of Iola, Kan. (Frederick G. Apt and Mitchell H. Bushey, both of Iola, Kan

  7. 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

  8. Motor Valve Mfg. Co. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    149 F.2d 247 (6th Cir. 1945)   Cited 5 times
    In Prevost v. United States, 149 F.2d 247, relied on by the majority, the typewritten statement was signed by the defendant and that portion of it was admissible, but the caption on the paper which had a line under it, that is between it and the statement itself, was held inadmissible, as the witness on the stand said he had never read it and, as a matter of fact, had never seen it until it was presented to him in court.