§
Ets-Hokin Corp.

20 Cited authorities

  1. Board v. Hearst Publications

    322 U.S. 111 (1944)   Cited 791 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Determining whether newsboys were independent contractors or employees under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA")

  2. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board

    313 U.S. 177 (1941)   Cited 871 times
    Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

  3. Labor Board v. Denver Bldg. Council

    341 U.S. 675 (1951)   Cited 494 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming Board's assertion of jurisdiction over activities taking place at local construction site based on finding that "any widespread application of the practices charged might well result in substantially decreasing" the flow of interstate commerce

  4. Carpenters' Union v. Labor Board

    357 U.S. 93 (1958)   Cited 201 times
    Rejecting Government position that we should defer to the Board's interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act

  5. Teamsters Local v. Labor Board

    365 U.S. 667 (1961)   Cited 174 times
    Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria

  6. Labor Board v. News Syndicate Co.

    365 U.S. 695 (1961)   Cited 22 times
    In NLRB v. News Syndicate Co., 365 U.S. 695, 81 S.Ct. 849, 6 L.Ed.2d 29 (1961), where the bargaining unit included supervisors, the NLRB had found that both the employer and the union had committed unfair labor practices by operating an unlawful closed shop and preferential hiring system.

  7. Orange Belt Dist. Coun. of Ptrs. v. N.L.R.B

    328 F.2d 534 (D.C. Cir. 1964)   Cited 56 times

    No. 17388. Argued November 6, 1963. Decided January 30, 1964. Mr. Herbert M. Ansell, Washington, D.C., of the bar of the Supreme Court of California, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, for petitioners. Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for petitioners. Mr. David Barr, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for petitioners. Mr. Hans J. Lehmann, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board

  8. District No. 9 v. N.L.R.B

    315 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1962)   Cited 24 times

    No. 16901. Argued September 27, 1962. Decided November 15, 1962. Mr. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Plato E. Papps, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Melvin J. Welles, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, National Labor Relations

  9. Construction, Prod. Lab. U. v. N.L.R.B

    323 F.2d 422 (9th Cir. 1963)   Cited 21 times
    Noting that the Supreme Court recognizes a "definite" distinction between an agreement to cease doing business and the cessation itself

  10. Local No. 5, United Ass'n v. N.L.R.B

    321 F.2d 366 (D.C. Cir. 1963)   Cited 21 times

    No. 17130. Argued March 26, 1963. Decided June 6, 1963. Mr. Donald J. Capuano, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Patrick C. O'Donoghue, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. Martin F. O'Donoghue, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for petitioner. Mr. Gary Green, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom Messrs. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel at the time of argument, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., were on the brief, for