§

Atlantic Union Resources, Inc.

07-CA-048067 (N.L.R.B. May. 31, 2005)
Atlantic Union Resources, Inc.

10 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. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

    487 U.S. 1205 (1988)   Cited 105 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

  3. 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

  4. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 80 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

  5. N.L.R.B.v. Talsol Corp.

    155 F.3d 785 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that an employee's comments about safety at a group meeting attended by employees and management constituted concerted activity because the meeting was conducted to address plant safety concerns, the employee's questions were on the topic of safety, and the context indicated that the employee's statements were “[c]learly ... not purely personal gripes”

  6. FPC Holdings, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    64 F.3d 935 (4th Cir. 1995)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that company's knowledge of employee's union involvement was properly inferred from the fact that the employees discussed a planned union meeting openly in the company's warehouse and over the company's CB radio at a time when the company was closely monitoring one of the employee's behavior

  7. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 27 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

  8. Jet Star, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    209 F.3d 671 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 11 times
    Finding stated reason for employee's discharge—abuse of equipment—pretextual, and finding discharge motivated by antiunion animus where supervisors allowed employee to continue working after observing employee abusing company truck, other employees who damaged company trucks were not fired, and employee was never formally reprimanded for abusing the trucks and was discharged without an investigation into the reported misconduct

  9. Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966)   Cited 56 times
    Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Limestone Apparel Corp.

    705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1982)   Cited 3 times

    No. 81-1693. October 29, 1982. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Jacob Oliner, Oliner Oliner, New York City, for respondent. Petition to Enforce an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before LIVELY, KRUPANSKY and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges. ORDER This cause comes before the Court upon the motion of the intervenor, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, for an order enforcing the order of the National Labor Relations Board in Limestone