§

American Commercial Barge Line Company

337 N.L.R.B. 1070 (N.L.R.B. 2002)
American Commercial Barge Line Company

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. National Labor Rel. B. v. Kentucky R. Comm. C

    532 U.S. 706 (2001)   Cited 180 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America

    511 U.S. 571 (1994)   Cited 96 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the Board's test is inconsistent with both the statutory language and th[e] Court's precedents"

  4. 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

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. International Van Lines

    409 U.S. 48 (1972)   Cited 71 times
    Holding that a statement that striking employees "are being permanently replaced" constituted an unlawful discharge when permanent replacements had not been hired

  6. Southern S.S. Co. v. Labor Board

    316 U.S. 31 (1942)   Cited 160 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding an abuse of discretion where the National Labor Relations Board sought to fulfill one congressional objective but “wholly ignore[d] other and equally important Congressional objectives”

  7. Mine Workers v. Arkansas Flooring Co.

    351 U.S. 62 (1956)   Cited 79 times
    In United Mine Workers v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co., 351 U.S. 62, 76 S.Ct. 559, 100 L. Ed. 941, references to postlegislative history were referred to in the opinion of the Court.

  8. Cooper/T. Smith, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    177 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 1999)   Cited 19 times
    Finding no assignment authority because employer failed to show docking pilots made assignments based on the skills and experiences of the putative subordinates

  9. Brusco Tug Barge Co. v. N.L.R.B

    247 F.3d 273 (D.C. Cir. 2001)   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 00-1183. Argued January 26, 2001. Decided May 1, 2001. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Thomas M. Triplett argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Karen O'Kasey. Christopher W. Young, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Leonard R. Page, General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Margaret A. Gaines,

  10. Spentonbush/Red Star Companies v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    106 F.3d 484 (2d Cir. 1997)   Cited 16 times
    Finding the "Board's biased mishandling of cases involving supervisors increasingly has called into question our obeisance to the Board's decisions in this area"

  11. Section 6621 - Determination of rate of interest

    26 U.S.C. § 6621   Cited 1,873 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Applying a higher interest rate to past liabilities resulting from tax-motivated transactions

  12. Section 2192 - Incitation of seamen to revolt or mutiny

    18 U.S.C. § 2192   Cited 4 times
    Providing penalties for encouraging disobedience or resisting the lawful orders of the master