J. - National Labor Relations Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

200 FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDWright, Chester M. Here comes labor. Macmillan. 1939. 122 p.Yoder •D. Laboi economics and, labor problems. Second Revised Edition.New York.. McGraw-Hill. 1939. 669 p. ••C. ARTICLESAdm'nistrative procedure: National Labor Relations Board (address.), byJ. Warren Madden. • West Virginia Law Quarterly and The Bar. Feb.1939. 45: 93-108."Amend the Labor Law, change the Board" (says industrial plant managementin Factory survey). Factory Management and Maintenance.- Jan. 1939.97: 38-47.'Appropriate collective bargaining units; National Labor Relations Board decisions,by R. A. Nixon. Harvard Business Review. Spring 1939. 17 no.3: 317-25.Chang:nu character of American industrial relations, by S. H. Slichter.American Economic Review. Mar. 1939. 29: sup. 121-37.'Collective- ba. rya. and Personal freedom, by Or0-dy Tend. Society 'fOr theAdvancement of Management Journal. Nov. 1938. 3: 161-6.Conflict and collaboration; recent literature on labor relations, by B. M. Selekman.Harvard Business Review. April 1939. 17 no. 3: 356-68.Congress .tackles the Labor Relations- Act. Congressional Digest. June-July,1939. 18: '165-92.Consolidated Edison Company labor decision, by C. F. Marsh, Journal of Landand Public Utility Economics. Feb. 1939. 15: 105-8."Discrimination" under the National Labor Relations Act, by Chester Ward.Yale Law Journal. May 1939. 48: 1152-99.Drive to amend the Wagner Act, by E. M. Herrick. Womans Press. May1939. 33: 214.Economics of collective bargaining, by M. Bronfenbrenuer. Quarterly Journalof Economics. Aug. 1939. 53: 535-61.Evidence before the National Labor Relations Board, by Ralph M. Goldstein.Boston University Law Review. Jan. 1939. 19: 32-38,The Fansteel case; employee misconduct and the remedial powers of theNational Labor Relations Board, by Henry M. Hart. Jr.. Edward F.Pritchard, Jr. Harvard Law Review. June 1939. 52,: 1275-1329:.Freedom for wage earners, by Witt Bowden. Annals Of the American Academyof Political and Social Science. Nov. 1938. 200: 185-209."From nose-thumb'ng to sabotage"; the Fansteel sit-down decision, by J.Denson Smith. Louisiana Law Review. Mar. 1939. 1: 577-92.0- D- Labor Board. Fortune. Oct. 1938. 18: 52-74.The "Globe rule" for determining appropriate bargaining units under theWagner Act. University of Chicago Law Review. June 1939. 6: 673-87.Governmental determination of units for industrial representation, by F. M.Kleller. Political Science Quarterly. Sept. 1939. 54: 343-63.Government's role in the adjustment of labor disputes (address.), by EdwinE. Witte. Minnesota taw Review. Dec. 1938. 23: 64-75.Industrial relations-executive and collective bargaining, by H. Baker. Societyfor the Advancement of Management Journal. July 1939. 4: 105-7.Industrial relations in- 1938, by Florence Peterson. Monthly Labor Review.Mar. 1939. 48: 493-:f08.Industry's- adjustment to recent labor legislation (address.); -byLeiSerson. Society for the Advancement of Management Journal. Jan. 1939.4: 5,-10.The influence of the National Labor Relations Board upon- inter-union coitfliets,by Thomas F. McGovern. Columbia Law Review. Nov. 1.938. 38: 1243-67.."Interference" in labor relations acts, by A. Howard Myers. Boston UniversityLaw Review. Apr. 1939. 19: 208-25.Interunion, disputes and the employer. Yale Law Journal. Apr. 1939. 48:1.053-82.Judicial interpretation of labor laws, by Osmond K. Fraenkel. University ofChicago Law Review. June 1939. 0:577-606.• • • •2 In addition to the sources listed under this heading there are numerous periodicalswhich often 'devote space to the subject. These include publicatio'ns With a general circulation(e. g., Ensiness'Week, The Nation, New Republic, Saturday. Evening Post, Newsweek),'publication's:of .ernployer groups,'"trade papers, and trade. union publications.
APPENDIX B 201Judicial review of the National Labor Relations Board, by Nathaniel L. Nathansonand Ellis Lyons. Illinois Law Review. Mar. 1939. 33: 749-70.Labor and capital can be friends, by William M Leiserson. Democratic Digest.Aug. 1939. 16: 12+.Labor disputes on rights and on interests, by John V. Spielmans. AmericanEconomic Review. June 1939. 19 no. 2: 299-312.Labor law, National Labor Relations Act, employee misconduct as barring relief,by John C. Griffin. Michigan Law Review. June 1939. 37: 1256-7G.Labor law-statutory construction, power of the National Labor Relations Boardto reinstate, by Richard M. Siegel. Wisconsin Law Review. May 1939. 1939:445-56.Labor movements of Great Britain and the United States, by N. J. Ware. AmericanEconomic R2view. June 1939. 20: 237-45.Labor's civil war, by Louis Stark. Current History. Jan. 1939. 49: 29-23+.The legal significance of labor contracts tinder the National Labor Relations Act,by William G. Rice, Jr. Michigan Law Review. Mar. 1939. 37: 693-724.The National Labor Relations Board, by James E. Pate. The Southern EconomicJournal. July 1939. 6: 56-76.National Labor Relations principles established by N. L. R. B. and court decisions,by David R. Scott. Annalist. Apr. 5, 1939. 58: 483-4.Negotiation of collective agreements in the rubber industry, by Harold S. Roberts.Monthly Labor Review. June 1939. 4S: 1282-6.New collective bargaining in mass production: methods, results, problems, byEmily C. Brown. The Journal of Political Economy. Feb. 1939. 47: 30-66.Politics and labor relations; an appraisal of criticisms of N. L. R. B. procedure,by Walter Gellhorn, Seymour L. Linfield. Columbia Law Review. Mar. 1939.39: 339-95.The preparation and trial of cases before the National Labor Relations Board(address), by Charles Fahy. American Bar Association Journal. Aug. 1939.25: 695-9.Proof of "discrimination" under the National Labor Relations Act, by ChesterWard. George Washington Law Review. May 1939. 7: 797-818.Rapid increase in contracts, by David J. Saposs and Sara Gamm. Labor RelationsReporter. June 12, 1939. 4: 6-10.Regional labor board's job ; New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, by E. M.Herrick. Personnel Journal. Mar. 1939. 17: 333-6.Reinstatement of it-down strikers, by George B. Weisiger. Minnesota LawReview. Dec. 1938. 23: 30-45.Sonic problems of the new unionism in the United States, by Philip Taft. AmericanEconomic Review. June 1939. 29: 313-24.Stare decisis in N. L. R. B. and S. E. C. New York University Law QuarterlyReview. May 1939. 16: 618-30.State and federal labor boards: problems of jurisdiction. Illinois Law Review.• Jan. 1939. 33: 558-74.Structure of AFL unions, by David J. Saposs and Sol Davison. Labor RelationsReporter. May 15, 1939. 4: 6-9.Supreme Court decisions on labor relations. Monthly Labor Review. Apr. 1939.48: 872-81.Symposium on administrative ./aw, by Ralph F. Fuchs, J. Warren Madden,Chester T. Lane, Elmer A. Smith, Ralph .Horween, Ray A. Brown, James M.Landis. American Law School Review. Apr. 1939. 9: 139-84.The- use of economic-data- in -labor -cases; by David Ziskind. 'University ofChicago Law Review. June 1939. 6: 607-50.The Wagner Act and labor relations (address before the Masachusetts Conferenceof-Social Work),- byllEdwin S. Sniith. 'Amalgamated Journal. Dec.8, 1938. Reprinted.What is employer domination or support?, by Lewis H. Van Dusen, Jr. TempleUniversity Law Quarterly. Nov. 1938. 13: 63-101.
Page 4:
LETTER OF TRANSMITTALNATIONAL LABOR
Page 13 and 14:
6 FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL
Page 15 and 16:
FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LA
Page 17 and 18:
10 FOITRTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONA
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
IV. WORK OF THE BOARDUnder the act
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
,24 FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONA
Page 34 and 35:
IV. WORK OF THE BOARD 27If all case
Page 36 and 37:
V. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASES 29of
Page 38 and 39:
TABLE VI.—Analyses of charges rec
Page 40 and 41:
V. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASES 33Th
Page 42 and 43:
TABLE VIII.—Disposition of unfair
Page 44 and 45:
V. UNFAIR LABOR PRAWICE CASES 37TAB
Page 46 and 47:
General Tax Tips #46TO BE PRINTED B
Page 48 and 49:
V. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASES 41TA
Page 50 and 51:
VI. REPRESENTATION CASES 43tion. In
Page 52 and 53:
TABLE XV.—bisposition of represen
Page 54 and 55:
VI. REPRESENTATION CASES 47'unions.
Page 56 and 57:
VI. REPRESENTATION CASES 49TABLE XV
Page 58 and 59:
VI. REPRESENTATION CASES 51C. ELECT
Page 60 and 61:
TABLE XX.-Elections conducted by th
Page 62 and 63:
VI. REPRESENTATION CASES 55(2) On a
Page 64 and 65:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 57A. IN
Page 66 and 67:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 590527,
Page 68 and 69:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED • 61T
Page 70 and 71:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 63In Ma
Page 72 and 73:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 65emplo
Page 74 and 75:
' VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 67in
Page 76 and 77:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 69D. DO
Page 78 and 79:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 71I * *
Page 80 and 81:
WI. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 73that,
Page 82 and 83:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 75.tion
Page 84 and 85:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 77Annua
Page 86 and 87:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 79to th
Page 88 and 89:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 81conte
Page 90 and 91:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 83or ot
Page 92 and 93:
VIL PRINWYLES ESTABLISHED 85the wis
Page 94 and 95:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 87to de
Page 96 and 97:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 89has b
Page 98 and 99:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 91of on
Page 100 and 101:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 93In Ma
Page 102 and 103:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 95of pr
Page 104 and 105:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISTTF.D 97-th
Page 106 and 107:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 99The B
Page 108 and 109:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 101The
Page 110 and 111:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 103ploy
Page 112 and 113:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 105More
Page 114 and 115:
VII. PIIINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 107the
Page 116 and 117:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 109In a
Page 118 and 119:
VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 111by i
Page 120 and 121:
VIII. JURISDICTION 113This result h
Page 122 and 123:
IX. LITIGATION 115ing Mill Employee
Page 124 and 125:
IX. LITIGATION 117ployees after ref
Page 126 and 127:
IX. LITIGATION 119-which they forme
Page 128 and 129:
IX.. LITIGATION 121which had gained
Page 130 and 131:
IX. LITIGATION 123Court held that t
Page 132 and 133:
IX. LITIGATION 125B. MISCELLANEOUS
Page 134 and 135:
IX. LITIGATION 127had given full ef
Page 136 and 137:
IX. LITIGATION 129'Where the corpor
Page 138 and 139:
IX. LITIGATION 131• When the unio
Page 140 and 141:
IX. LITIGATION 133established altho
Page 142 and 143:
IX. LITIGATION 135corporation's fai
Page 144 and 145:
IX. LITIGATION 137Corp. v. N. L. R.
Page 146 and 147:
DC. LITIGATION13gopposed to that un
Page 148 and 149:
IX. LITIGATION 141B. CONSENT DECREE
Page 150 and 151:
IX. LITIGATION 143Dupuy Storage d F
Page 152 and 153:
IX. LITIGATION 145L. C. Phenix Co..
Page 154 and 155:
IX. LITIGATION 147Tenth Circuit Cou
Page 156 and 157:
X. THE TRIAL EXAMINERS' DIVISIONThe
Page 158 and 159: X. THE TRIAL EXAMINERS' DIVISION 15
Page 160 and 161: XI. DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1
Page 162 and 163: XL DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 15
Page 164 and 165: XI. DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1
Page 166 and 167: XII. INFORMATION DIVISION 159The ac
Page 168 and 169: INFORMATION DIVISION 161,Throughout
Page 170 and 171: XIII. LIST OF CASES HEARD AND DECIS
Page 174 and 175: XIII. LIST OF CASES HEARD- AND DECI
Page 176 and 177: LIST OF CASES HEARD AND DECISIONS R
Page 178 and 179: XM. LIST OF CASES HEARD AND DECISIO
Page 196 and 197: APPENDIX ATABLE T.—Comparison of
Page 198 and 199: CHART A6NUMBER OF STRIKES CONTRASTE
Page 200 and 201: ' •Arpti-smix"A 193TABii -1L-Comp
Page 202 and 203: NUMBER OF WORKERS INVOLVED IN ORGAN
Page 204 and 205: CHART EMILLIONS OFMAN-DAYS OF IDLEN
Page 206 and 207: APPENDIX B• ,. "Pft,LIST .7 F 3RE
show all

J. - National Labor Relations Board

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?