ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL

53 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Canning
573 U.S. 513 (2014) Cited 275 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 ”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 655 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."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,036 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"
Labor Board v. Laughlin
301 U.S. 1 (1937) Cited 1,501 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis
New Process Steel v. N.L.R.B.
560 U.S. 674 (2010) Cited 142 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Board cannot exercise its powers absent a lawfully appointed quorum
Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
440 U.S. 301 (1979) Cited 228 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores
Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Labor Board
350 U.S. 270 (1956) Cited 403 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 265 times 4 Legal Analyses
Approving "discovery-type standard"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.
389 U.S. 375 (1967) Cited 233 times
In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.
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
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,095 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"

ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL

53 Cited authorities

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 ”

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."

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis

Holding that the Board cannot exercise its powers absent a lawfully appointed quorum

Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores

Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"

Approving "discovery-type standard"

In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.

Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

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"