§
Aldworth Co.

30 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. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.

    406 U.S. 272 (1972)   Cited 478 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement

  4. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board

    324 U.S. 793 (1945)   Cited 495 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

  5. 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.”

  6. 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

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc.

    691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982)   Cited 339 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that joint employer situation exists only when "two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees . . . [where] they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment"

  8. Clinton's Ditch Co-op. Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    778 F.2d 132 (2d Cir. 1985)   Cited 140 times
    Finding the fact that a company complains to a contractor about problems that the company's customers had with the contractor's drivers, and that the company "expected appropriate action to be taken" against the contractor's driver did not demonstrate joint employment

  9. Carry Companies of Illinois, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    30 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 1994)   Cited 34 times
    Acknowledging that, "where an employer establishes a regular pattern of overlooking certain violations of company policy, the employer may not later rely on such violations to satisfy its burden under Wright Line."

  10. W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    860 F.2d 244 (7th Cir. 1988)   Cited 30 times
    In W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. NLRB, 860 F.2d 244, 247 (6th Cir. 1988), the court stated that the factual question of whether two employers are joint depends on factors such as "the supervision of the employees' day-to-day activities, authority to hire or fire employees, promulgation of work rules and conditions of employment, work assignments, and issuance of operating instructions."