§

Arkansas Lighthouse For The Blind

284 N.L.R.B. 1214 (N.L.R.B. 1987)
Arkansas Lighthouse For The Blind

14 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. 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

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thor Power Tool Co.

    351 F.2d 584 (7th Cir. 1965)   Cited 68 times
    Concluding that "when the entire record is considered there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that [employee's] discharge was the result of his having presented a grievance to the management" even though employee was overheard referring to company's superintendent as "the horse's ass" and was thereafter summarily discharged

  4. Chemvet Laboratories, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    497 F.2d 445 (8th Cir. 1974)   Cited 21 times
    Holding threats of plant closure are "the most potent" instruments of employer interference

  5. N.L.R.B. v. St. Louis Christian Home

    663 F.2d 60 (8th Cir. 1981)   Cited 11 times
    In NLRB v. St. Louis Christian Home, 663 F.2d 60 (8th Cir. 1981), for example, the Eighth Circuit upheld the Board's jurisdiction over a church-operated home for battered, abused, and neglected children.

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Lighthouse for the Blind

    696 F.2d 399 (5th Cir. 1983)   Cited 8 times

    No. 80-1753. January 31, 1983. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 21, 1983. Elliott Moore, Deputy Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Sandra Williams, David Fleischer, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Donald S. Shire, Associate Sol., Barbara E. Kahl, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., amicus curiae, Secretary of Labor. Eric H. Nelson, Houston, Tex., for intervenor Teamsters Local No. 968. Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Brown Laboon, W. Robert Brown, Douglas R. Little, Houston, Tex., for respondent

  7. Cincinnati Ass'n for the Blind v. N.L.R.B

    672 F.2d 567 (6th Cir. 1982)   Cited 6 times
    In Cincinnati, the Board distinguished its decision to decline jurisdiction in Goodwill Industries of Southern California, 231 N.L.R.B. 536 (1977), finding that the Cincinnati "workshop operation [was] significantly based on economic considerations" while "the single overriding purpose of the `employer-client' relationship [in Goodwill] was rehabilitation."

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Lighthouse for Blind of Houston

    653 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 6 times
    In NLRB v Lighthouse for the Blind of Houston, 653 F.2d 206 (CA 5, 1981), the Fifth Circuit concluded that the NLRB'S application of the "guiding purpose" test was not supported by substantial evidence where the board found workers to be covered "employees" because they were paid variable wages based upon performance and productivity.

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Kent Cty. Ass'n, Retarded Citizens

    590 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1978)   Cited 8 times

    No. 78-1263. Argued November 9, 1978. Decided December 28, 1978. Michael B. Nicholson, Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, and Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for petitioner. Gary R. St. Peter, Providence, R. I., with whom William J. Sheehan, and Adler, Pollock Sheehan, Inc., Providence, R. I., were on brief, for respondent. Before

  10. Exchange Bank v. N.L.R.B

    732 F.2d 60 (6th Cir. 1984)   Cited 3 times

    Nos. 82-1807, 82-1933. Argued October 7, 1983. Decided April 16, 1984. Wells T. Lovett (argued), Lovett, Lamar Hutchinson, Owensboro, Ky., for petitioner. Michael Fox (argued), Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before MERRITT, Circuit Judge, PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge, and SPIEGEL, District Judge. The Honorable S. Arthur Spiegel, United States District Court Judge for the Southern

  11. Section 214 - Employment under special certificates

    29 U.S.C. § 214   Cited 47 times   12 Legal Analyses

    (a) Learners, apprentices, messengers The Secretary, to the extent necessary in order to prevent curtailment of opportunities for employment, shall by regulations or by orders provide for the employment of learners, of apprentices, and of messengers employed primarily in delivering letters and messages, under special certificates issued pursuant to regulations of the Secretary, at such wages lower than the minimum wage applicable under section 206 of this title and subject to such limitations as