§

Apex Linen Service Inc.

28-CA-192349 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 6, 2018)
Apex Linen Service Inc.

13 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Canning

    573 U.S. 513 (2014)   Cited 279 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 ”

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 656 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."

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,036 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  4. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 712 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

    385 U.S. 432 (1967)   Cited 265 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving "discovery-type standard"

  6. 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

  7. Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.

    351 U.S. 149 (1956)   Cited 223 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

  8. Bourne v. N.L.R.B

    332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964)   Cited 93 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

  9. Ceridian Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    435 F.3d 352 (D.C. Cir. 2006)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 04-1421. Argued October 31, 2005. Decided January 27, 2006. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Donald W. Selzer, Jr. argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Joseph P. Harkins. Jeff Barham, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Fred

  10. New Orleans Cold Storage & Warehouse Co., Ltd. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    201 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2000)   Cited 11 times
    Rejecting a company's argument that the employee would have been terminated regardless of his union activity where the evidence was that the company did not ordinarily enforce certain rules and procedures