National Labor Relations Board v. Weathercraft Company of Topeka, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.8. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
The National Labor Relations Board has petitioned this court for enforcement of its order against Weathercraft Company of Topeka, Inc. (Weathercraft). The Board’s order concluded that Weathercraft had committed an unfair labor practice by instituting unilateral modifications to a collective…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Sure-Tan, Inc. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Republic Steel Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- National Labor Relations Board v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- National Labor Relations Board v. International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 433Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
- Leeds & Northrup Company v. National Labor Relations Board, Leeds and Northrup Employees Union, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Nabors Trailers, Inc. (N/k/a Steego Transportation Equipment Centers, Inc.) v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1990
- Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc. v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1996
- Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc. v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1996
- Fieldcrest Cannon, Incorporated v. National Labor Relations Board, Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, Afl-Cio, Clc, Intervenor. National Labor Relations Board v. Fieldcrest Cannon, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1996