Legal Opinion
National Labor Relations Board v. Kanmak Mills, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided December 17, 1952No. 10555_1PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge.
The Labor Board here petitions for enforcement of its order of February 28, 1951 against respondents. It is conceded that the latter comprise an integrated enterprise. No jurisdictional question is presented.
The first finding by the Board is “ * * * that the Respondents interfered with, restrained and coerced their employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.” 61 Stat. 140 (1947), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1). This is based on actions and conduct fairly attributable to the respondents during efforts to unionize their plant. There is evidence in the record that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- H. J. Heinz Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- National Labor Relations Board v. New Era Die Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
- National Labor Relations Board v. Electric City Dyeing Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
- National Labor Relations Board v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Miami, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1952
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- National Labor Relations Board v. Buitoni Foods Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962
- Bakery Wagon Drivers and Salesmen, Local Union No. 484 v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1963
- National Labor Relations Board v. Clearfield Cheese Co., IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1954
- National Labor Relations Board v. Beaver Meadow Creamery, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1954
- National Labor Relations Board v. L. Ronney & Sons Furniture Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.