Legal Opinion
Connecticut Light and Power Company v. Leedom
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided March 25, 1959No. Civ. A. 2822-58PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McLAUGHLIN, District Judge.
The facts in this case are not in dispute. Plaintiff has eight employees who are called load dispatchers and one em ployee called a load forecaster, 1 in addition to its other production and management personnel. These nine men are not members of any union. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers [hereinafter the “Union”] is the bargaining representative for the production and maintenance employees of plaintiff. In March 1958, the Union petitioned the National Labor Relations Board for certification as the bargaining agent of all plaintiff’s load…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Aetna Life Insurance v. HaworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- United Public Workers of America v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Leedom v. KyneSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Klamath Cty. v. Laborers Int. U. of Na, Loc. No. 915Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1975
- Luce & Co., S. en C. v. Junta de Relaciones del Trabajo de Puerto RicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1961
- United Insurance Company of America, a Corporation v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1959
- Sheridan Silver Co. v. AlpertDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1959
- Luce & Co., S. en C. v. Puerto Rico Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1961