§

ADB Utility Contractors, Inc.

14-CA-027386 (N.L.R.B. May. 10, 2005)
ADB Utility Contractors, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 652 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the employer bears the burden of negating causation in a mixed-motive discrimination case, noting "[i]t is fair that [the employer] bear the risk that the influence of legal and illegal motives cannot be separated."

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,035 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  3. National Labor Rel. B. v. Kentucky R. Comm. C

    532 U.S. 706 (2001)   Cited 180 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 357 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  5. N.L.R.B. v. General Fabrications Corp.

    222 F.3d 218 (6th Cir. 2000)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding the NLRB is entitled to summary enforcement of unchallenged portions of orders

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Jamaica Towing, Inc.

    632 F.2d 208 (2d Cir. 1980)   Cited 50 times
    Holding that "hallmark" violations of NLRA "include such employer misbehavior as the closing of a plant or threats of plant closure or loss of employment, the grant of benefits to employees, or the reassignment, demotion or discharge of union adherents" and lesser violations "include such employer misconduct as interrogating employees regarding their union sympathies, holding out a `carrot' of promised benefits, expressing anti-union resolve, threatening that unionization will result in decreased benefits, or suggesting that physical force might be used to exclude the union"

  7. Beverly California Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    227 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer may not probe directly or indirectly into an employee's reasons for supporting a union

  8. Dunkin' Donuts Mid-Atlantic v. N.L.R.B

    363 F.3d 437 (D.C. Cir. 2004)   Cited 10 times
    Enforcing In re Aldworth Co., 338 NLRB 137

  9. Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966)   Cited 56 times
    Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination

  10. Hotel Emp. Restaurant Emp. Un. v. N.L.R.B

    760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 26 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Affirming Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176