§

Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.

81 N.L.R.B. 557 (N.L.R.B. 1949)
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.

5 Cited authorities

  1. May Stores Co. v. Labor Board

    326 U.S. 376 (1945)   Cited 257 times
    Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"

  2. H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 514 (1941)   Cited 241 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.

  3. Republic Steel Corp. v. Labor Board

    311 U.S. 7 (1940)   Cited 231 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Republic Steel, supra, the Court refused to enforce an order requiring the employer to pay the full amount of back pay to an employee who had been paid to work for the Work Projects Administration in the meantime.

  4. Matter of Northwest Engineering Co.

    863 F.2d 1313 (7th Cir. 1988)   Cited 26 times
    In Matter of Northwest Engineering Co., 863 F.2d 1313 (7th Cir 1988), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with a contention by employees that because their entitlement to vacation pay for the year 1982 depended upon their working at least one day in 1983, all of the vacation pay was "earned" for bankruptcy purposes on that day of vesting, within 90 days of the debtor's filing of its bankruptcy petition on April 1, 1983.

  5. Matter of Sewell Mfg. Co., Inc.

    195 B.R. 180 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1996)   Cited 4 times
    Rejecting PBGC's argument that Section 1341 (c) (B) of ERISA required a debtor to file a plan of reorganization and disclosure statement as a necessary prerequisite to a bankruptcy court's distress termination analysis and recognizing case law holding that "ERISA may not be interpreted so as to confound the clear intentions of the Bankruptcy Code's drafters"