American Medical Response of Connecticut

9 Cited authorities

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
Canning v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
705 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2013) Cited 96 times 37 Legal Analyses
Holding that such a challenge qualifies as an "extraordinary circumstance"
Labor Board v. Burnup Sims
379 U.S. 21 (1964) Cited 106 times 21 Legal Analyses
Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"
Labor Board v. Sands Mfg. Co.
306 U.S. 332 (1939) Cited 139 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Sands Mfg. Co., 306 U.S. 332, 59 S.Ct. 508, 83 L.Ed. 682, affirming the ruling of this Court in 6 Cir., 96 F.2d 721, the Supreme Court held the employer justified in abandoning further negotiations with the Union when conditions showed the uselessness of continuing with them.
N.L.R.B. v. Augusta Bakery Corp.
957 F.2d 1467 (7th Cir. 1992) Cited 45 times
Holding that the replacements were temporary because, although the replacements were told that "if they worked out and did their job, they had a job," the testimony of the replacements indicated that they did not understand themselves to be permanent employees
Vanguard Fire Supply Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
468 F.3d 952 (6th Cir. 2006) Cited 13 times
Nos. 05-2497, 05-2630. Argued: September 20, 2006. Decided and Filed: November 21, 2006. Appeal from the petition for review of final National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). ARGUED: Timothy J. Ryan, Ryan Lykins, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Petitioner. Stacy G. Zimmerman, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Jason J. Valtos, Osborne Law Offices, Washington, D.C., for Intervener. ON BRIEF: Timothy J. Ryan, Ryan Lykins, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Petitioner. Stacy G. Zimmerman
Roadway Exp., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
427 F. App'x 838 (11th Cir. 2011) Cited 3 times
No. 10-12445. May 27, 2011. Todd A. Dawson, Baker Hostetler, LLP, Cleveland, OH, for Petitioner. Usha Dheenan, Linda Dreeben, Assistant General Counsel, Fred B. Jacob, Assistant General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, Rochelle Kentov, Christopher Zerby, Tampa, FL, for Respondent. Barbara M. Harvey, Detroit, MI, for Intervenor. Petition for Review of a Decision of the National Labor Relations Board and Cross Application for Enforcement. Agency No. 12-CA-22202. Before DUBINA
Automobile Salesmen's Union v. N.L.R.B
711 F.2d 383 (D.C. Cir. 1983) Cited 26 times
Summarizing post-1982 standard for finding violations of the Act in disciplinary actions taken against supervisors
N.L.R.B. v. Citizens Hotel Company
326 F.2d 501 (5th Cir. 1964) Cited 29 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Citizens Hotel Co., 5 Cir., 326 F.2d 501, dealing with a somewhat similar unilateral termination of a bonus, we stated: "There was, therefore, an impermissible unilateral change constituting a failure to bargain."

American Medical Response of Connecticut

9 Cited authorities

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

Holding that such a challenge qualifies as an "extraordinary circumstance"

Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

In N.L.R.B. v. Sands Mfg. Co., 306 U.S. 332, 59 S.Ct. 508, 83 L.Ed. 682, affirming the ruling of this Court in 6 Cir., 96 F.2d 721, the Supreme Court held the employer justified in abandoning further negotiations with the Union when conditions showed the uselessness of continuing with them.

Holding that the replacements were temporary because, although the replacements were told that "if they worked out and did their job, they had a job," the testimony of the replacements indicated that they did not understand themselves to be permanent employees

Summarizing post-1982 standard for finding violations of the Act in disciplinary actions taken against supervisors

In N.L.R.B. v. Citizens Hotel Co., 5 Cir., 326 F.2d 501, dealing with a somewhat similar unilateral termination of a bonus, we stated: "There was, therefore, an impermissible unilateral change constituting a failure to bargain."