§

Advanced Masonry Associates, LLC d/b/a Advanced Masonry Systems

366 NLRB No. 57 (N.L.R.B. 2018)
Advanced Masonry Associates, LLC d/b/a Advanced Masonry Systems

12 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Canning

    573 U.S. 513 (2014)   Cited 274 times   150 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because there was no quorum of validly appointed board members, the NLRB “lacked authority to act,” and the enforcement order was therefore “void ab initio ”

  2. 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."

  3. 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

  4. Inova Health Sys. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    795 F.3d 68 (D.C. Cir. 2015)   Cited 28 times
    Doubting that a company fired its employee for her unprofessional conduct, as it claimed, when that company's investigation into her behavior was "one-sided" and incomplete

  5. Chevron Mining, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    684 F.3d 1318 (D.C. Cir. 2012)   Cited 19 times
    Reexamining precedent in light of recent Supreme Court decisions and reaching the same conclusion

  6. Bourne v. N.L.R.B

    332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964)   Cited 93 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

  7. Autonation, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    801 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2015)   Cited 7 times
    Finding employer's claim that it fired employee due to job abandonment to be a pretext because employer knew that employee had filed for unemployment benefits and was under the impression that he had already been terminated and yet the company did nothing to correct the employee's alleged misimpression

  8. King Soopers, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    859 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2017)   Cited 5 times

    No. 16-1316 C/w 16-1367 06-09-2017 KING SOOPERS, INC., Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Raymond M. Deeny, Colorado Springs, CO, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Jonathon M. Watson, Denver, CO. Amy H. Ginn, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Richard F. Griffin, Jr., General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Robert

  9. Amglo Kemlite Labs., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    833 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2016)

    Nos. 15–3695 & 15–1141 08-17-2016 Amglo Kemlite Laboratories, Inc., Petitioner/Cross–Respondent, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/Cross–Petitioner. Thomas C. Cronin, Cronin & Company, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Petitioner/Cross–Respondent (Case No. 15–3695). Thomas C. Cronin, Leland W. Hutchinson, Jr., Cronin & Company, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Petitioner/Cross–Respondent (Case No. 15–1141). Linda Dreeben, Barbara A. Sheehy, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, for Respondent/Cross–Petitioner

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Cal-Maine Farms, Inc.

    998 F.2d 1336 (5th Cir. 1993)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 92-4741. September 1, 1993. Fred L. Cornnell, Jr., Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Fred C. Havard, NLRB, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Kenneth E. Milam, Rebecca L. Wiggs, Watkins Eager, Jackson, MS, for respondent. Hugh Frank Malone, Director, NLRB Region 15, New Orleans, LA, for other interested party. Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. KING, Circuit Judge: This case is before

  11. Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy

    29 U.S.C. § 151   Cited 5,092 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"