§

Carpenters Local 925

279 N.L.R.B. 1051 (N.L.R.B. 1986)
Carpenters Local 925

5 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. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

    465 U.S. 822 (1984)   Cited 206 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection

  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. Office Employes v. Labor Board

    353 U.S. 313 (1957)   Cited 54 times
    Holding that, when a union acts as an employer, it is deemed an employer within the meaning of the NLRA and subject to the jurisdiction of the NLRB

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Chain Serv. Restaurant

    302 F.2d 167 (2d Cir. 1962)   Cited 5 times

    No. 255, Docket 27253. Argued March 9, 1962. Decided April 10, 1962. Standau E. Weinbrecht, Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Samuel M. Singer, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Harold L. Luxemburg, New York City (Steven J. Goldsmith, New York City, on the brief), for respondent. Before WATERMAN, KAUFMAN and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges. KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge