N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

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

Labor Board v. Burnup Sims

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

Shamrock Foods Company v. N.L.R.B

Holding that "Wright Line is inapplicable to cases . . . in which the employer has discharged the employee because of alleged misconduct in the course of protected activity"

Consolidated Diesel Co. v. N.L.R.B

Recognizing that "[t]here would be nothing left of [the Act's] rights if every time employees exercised them in a way that was somehow offensive to someone," they were subject to the threat of discipline

Frazier Industrial Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

Finding that employment application which stated that “false information, omissions, or misrepresentations may result in a discharge of the employee” was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff would have been discharged for conduct at issue, and that company policy manual specifying that falsification of records would warrant immediate dismissal was immaterial where manual had not been distributed to employee prior to employee's termination

Handicabs, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

Holding that a company policy violated the Act by prohibiting employees from discussing employment conditions with the company's clients.

N.L.R.B. v. Selwyn Shoe Manufacturing Corp.

In NLRB v. Selwyn Shoe Manufacturing Corp., 428 F.2d 217 (8th Cir. 1970), the court's holding was that there was not substantial evidence to support the Board's findings of §§ 8(a)(3) and (1) violations.

Bank of St. Louis v. N.L.R.B

Section 173 - Functions of Service

Providing that the "final adjustment by a method agreed upon by the parties is declared to be the desirable method for settlement of grievance disputes. . . ."