§
Aero Industries

18 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. 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. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Action Automotive, Inc.

    469 U.S. 490 (1985)   Cited 44 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding Board rule excluding from bargaining unit employees who are relatives of management

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Nueva Engineering, Inc.

    761 F.2d 961 (4th Cir. 1985)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that the Brady rule is inapplicable to proceedings under the National Labor Relations Act, since the Act "is civil in nature, does not involve potential incarceration and violation of the Act does not carry with it the stigma of a criminal conviction"

  6. N.L.R.B. v. S.E. Nichols, Inc.

    862 F.2d 952 (2d Cir. 1988)   Cited 30 times
    Finding that violations at various locations managed by the same district supervisor justified an order covering all locations managed by that district supervisor

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Laney Duke Storage Warehouse Co.

    369 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1966)   Cited 59 times
    In Laney Duke, the ALJ had ordered the employer to read the notice to any employee who requested it, but the Board had expanded this to require a reading to all employees, singly or collectively, whether or not requested. The Fifth Circuit denied enforcement because it considered this remedy "unnecessarily embarrassing and humiliating to management rather than effectuating the policies of the Act."

  8. Southwire Co. v. N.L.R.B

    820 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that absence of evidence that employer discharged any other employee for similar violation supported finding of pretext

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Speedway Petroleum

    768 F.2d 151 (7th Cir. 1985)   Cited 20 times

    No. 84-2838. Argued June 3, 1985. Decided July 17, 1985. Elinor Stillman, Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Lawrence M. Cohen, Fox Grove, Chicago, Ill., for respondent. Petition from the National Labor Relations Board. Before CUMMINGS, Chief Judge, EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, and WRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge. The Honorable Eugene A. Wright, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is sitting by designation. CUMMINGS, Chief Judge. The

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Affiliated Midwest Hosp., Inc.

    789 F.2d 524 (7th Cir. 1986)   Cited 16 times

    Nos. 85-1752, 85-1848. Argued December 12, 1985. Decided April 23, 1986. Fred Howard, Elliott Moore, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Joel A. D'Alba, Asher, Pavalon, Gittler Greenfield, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., Ronald C. Henson, Ford Harrison, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before COFFEY, FLAUM, and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges. FLAUM, Circuit Judge. This appeal arises from challenges to a union decertification election that occurred over six years

  11. Section 152 - Definitions

    29 U.S.C. § 152   Cited 3,211 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Defining a supervisor to include “any individual having authority . . . to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment”