§

American Tissue Corp.

336 N.L.R.B. 435 (N.L.R.B. 2001)
American Tissue Corp.

36 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. Director, Off. of Work. Comp. v. Greenwich Collieries

    512 U.S. 267 (1994)   Cited 445 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under the Administrative Procedure Act, the burden of proof encompasses the burden of persuasion; when the evidence is evenly balanced, the party with the burden must lose

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

    388 U.S. 26 (1967)   Cited 322 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

  5. Radio Officers v. Labor Board

    347 U.S. 17 (1954)   Cited 470 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

  6. Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.

    370 U.S. 9 (1962)   Cited 206 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

  7. 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

  8. Southwest Merchandising Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    53 F.3d 1334 (D.C. Cir. 1995)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that the jury could infer pretext and unlawful discrimination from an employer's shifting and inconsistent explanations for its action

  9. United States v. Medico

    557 F.2d 309 (2d Cir. 1977)   Cited 68 times
    Finding that the "specific requirements" of Federal Rule 803 are satisfied without corroboration, although the trial court may consider the absence of corroboration when deciding if the statement would be better admitted under the federal residual exception

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Overnite Transp. Co.

    938 F.2d 815 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that employer engaged in surface bargaining despite the fact employer had attended six bargaining sessions with union, commented on proposals, offered counterproposals, and maintained bargaining stance that had at least some merit, because vice president of employer expressly stated that employer would not sign contract with union, openly threatened to shut down terminal in order to defeat union, and implied that employer would force strike situation and permanently dismiss those employees who left to join picket lines

  11. Rule 804 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-When the Declarant Is Unavailable as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 804   Cited 4,048 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing an exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule when the party against whom the statement is offered has engaged in wrongdoing which procures the unavailability of the declarant