§
Air 2, LLC

8 Cited authorities

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

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 657 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 1,038 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  3. Labor Board v. Parts Co.

    375 U.S. 405 (1964)   Cited 213 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

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

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 358 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. 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"

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Styletek, Div. of Pandel-Bradford

    520 F.2d 275 (1st Cir. 1975)   Cited 29 times

    No. 75-1017. Argued June 3, 1975. Decided August 6, 1975. Margery E. Lieber, Atty., with whom Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, and John H. Ferguson, Atty., were on brief, for petitioner. George H. Foley, Boston, Mass., with whom Hale Dorr, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, McENTEE

  7. Ohio Power Co. v. N.L.R.B

    176 F.2d 385 (6th Cir. 1949)   Cited 64 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plain and unambiguous text must be applied as written without resort to construction

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Edward G. Budd Mfg. Co.

    169 F.2d 571 (6th Cir. 1948)   Cited 46 times
    In NLRB v. Budd Mfg. Co., 169 F.2d 571, 577 (6th Cir. 1945), cert. denied, 335 U.S. 905, 69 S.Ct. 411, 93 L.Ed. 441 (1949), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals specifically rejected the notion that the protection afforded by the National Labor Relations Act is a constitutional right.