Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { ?s ?p "NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292 (1939) is an 5-to-2 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the National Labor Relations Act required decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) to be based on substantial evidence. The Supreme Court overturned a ruling of the Board (requiring an employer to rehire striking workers) for not being based on substantial evidence. The Court also held that only the representative of the workers (the union) could issue collective bargaining proposals under the law, and that proposals transmitted by a third party did not trigger the Act's protections or duties."@en }
Showing triples 1 to 2 of
2
with 100 triples per page.
- NLRB_v._Columbian_Enameling_&_Stamping_Co. abstract "NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292 (1939) is an 5-to-2 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the National Labor Relations Act required decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) to be based on substantial evidence. The Supreme Court overturned a ruling of the Board (requiring an employer to rehire striking workers) for not being based on substantial evidence. The Court also held that only the representative of the workers (the union) could issue collective bargaining proposals under the law, and that proposals transmitted by a third party did not trigger the Act's protections or duties.".
- Q6954665 abstract "NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292 (1939) is an 5-to-2 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the National Labor Relations Act required decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) to be based on substantial evidence. The Supreme Court overturned a ruling of the Board (requiring an employer to rehire striking workers) for not being based on substantial evidence. The Court also held that only the representative of the workers (the union) could issue collective bargaining proposals under the law, and that proposals transmitted by a third party did not trigger the Act's protections or duties.".