§

Tree Fruits Labor Relations Committee, Inc.

121 N.L.R.B. 516 (N.L.R.B. 1958)
Tree Fruits Labor Relations Committee, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,683 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

  2. Labor Board v. American Ins. Co.

    343 U.S. 395 (1952)   Cited 269 times
    Holding the degree of discretion in a CBA "is an issue for determination across the bargaining table, not by the Board"

  3. Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.

    351 U.S. 149 (1956)   Cited 223 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

  4. NLRB v. Item Co.

    220 F.2d 956 (5th Cir. 1955)   Cited 36 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Item Company, 220 F.2d 956 (5th Cir. 1955), this court held that an employer had no confidentiality privilege to withhold from the union relevant wage data, "which the union's own employee-members apparently refused to disclose to it."

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Whitin Mach. Works

    217 F.2d 593 (4th Cir. 1954)   Cited 25 times

    No. 6883. November 18, 1954. Decided December 8, 1954. Frederick U. Reel, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, and James A. Ryan, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner. Whiteford S. Blakeney, Charlotte, N.C. (Pierce Blakeney, Charlotte, N.C., on brief), for respondent. Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This is a petition by the National Labor

  6. J.I. Case Company v. National Labor Rel. Board

    253 F.2d 149 (7th Cir. 1958)   Cited 20 times
    In J.I. Case we simply noted that a union has, absent a showing of relevance, no "`per se' right to information" it requests from an employer during the course of collective bargaining.

  7. National Labor Board v. Glen Raven Knitting

    235 F.2d 413 (4th Cir. 1956)   Cited 15 times

    No. 7215. Argued June 15, 1956. Decided July 30, 1956. Robert Cohn, Atty., National Labor Relations Bd., Winston-Salem, N.C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Frederick U. Reel, Atty., National Labor Relations Bd., Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner. Whiteford S. Blakeney, Charlotte, N.C. (J.W. Alexander, Jr., Charlotte, N.C., on brief), for respondent. Before PARKER, Chief Judge, SOPER, Circuit Judge

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. F.W. Woolworth Co.

    235 F.2d 319 (9th Cir. 1956)   Cited 14 times

    No. 14577. June 25, 1956. David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel, Edward D. Friedman, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Daniel J. Harrington, Atty., N.L.R.B., Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Davies, Hardy Schenck, Christopher W. Hoey, New York City, George O. Bahrs, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. Before STEPHENS, FEE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges. CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge. Herein we have a question of whether the Woolworth