National Labor Relations Board v. Augusta Bakery Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the replacements were temporary because, although the replacements were told that “if they worked out and did their job, they had a job,” the testimony of the replacements indicated that they did not understand themselves to be permanent employees
• holding that the replacements were temporary because, although the replacements were told that “if they worked out and did their job, they had a job,” the testimony of the replace- ments indicated that they did not understand themselves to be permanent employees
• holding that the replacements were temporary because, although the replace- ments were told that “if they worked out and did their job, they had a job,” the testimony of the replacements indicated that they did not understand themselves to be permanent employees
• “Where two inferences can be drawn ... it is within the Board’s province to determine which is appropriate.”
• \Where two inferences can be drawn ... it is within the Board's province to determine which is appropriate.\
• “Where two inferences can be drawn . . . it is within the Board’s province to determine which is appropriate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).