§

Cedar Falls Health Care Center

276 N.L.R.B. 1300 (N.L.R.B. 1985)
Cedar Falls Health Care Center

12 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. Golden State Bottling Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    414 U.S. 168 (1973)   Cited 497 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 65(d) allows enforcement of orders against successors of enjoined parties

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.

    406 U.S. 272 (1972)   Cited 478 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement

  4. Interstate Circuit v. U.S.

    306 U.S. 208 (1939)   Cited 512 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding proof of an explicit agreement unnecessary to establish antitrust conspiracy among movie distributors where, "knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it"

  5. 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

  6. Howell Chev. Co. v. Labor Board

    346 U.S. 482 (1953)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that a car retailer is subject to Commerce Clause as an "'integral part' of General Motors' national system of distribution."

  7. Seattle-First Nat. Bank v. N.L.R.B

    638 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 20 times

    No. 79-7157. Argued and Submitted September 9, 1980. Decided February 5, 1981. Mark A. Hutchenson (argued), Davis, Wright, Todd, Riese Jones, Seattle, Wash., George R. Murphy, Washington, D.C., on brief, for petitioner. Marjorie Gofreed, Washington, D.C., for respondent; Elliott Moore, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application For Enforcement of an Order of The National Labor Relations Board. Before SNEED and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges and JAMESON, District

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Howell Chevrolet Co.

    204 F.2d 79 (9th Cir. 1953)   Cited 53 times
    In National Labor Relations Bd. v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 204 F.2d 79, 86 (9th Cir. 1953), we recognized that "carriage, behavior, bearing, manner and appearance of a witness, — his demeanor, —" may cause the trier of fact to reject uncontradicted testimony.

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Computed Time Corp.

    587 F.2d 790 (5th Cir. 1979)   Cited 10 times
    In NLRB v. Computed Time Corporation, 587 F.2d 790, 794 (5th Cir. 1979), the Fifth Circuit noted that "[i]n order for an employer to violate Section 8(a)(1) by illegal surveillance, interrogation or any other unlawful act, he must `interfere with, restrain, [or] coerce' employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights."

  10. Henning Cheadle, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    522 F.2d 1050 (7th Cir. 1975)   Cited 12 times

    Nos. 74-1756, 74-1891. Argued May 22, 1975. Decided September 16, 1975. Richard J. Walsh, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Elliott Moore, Deputy Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marjorie S. Gofreed, William F. Wachter, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition from the National Labor Relations Board. Before CUMMINGS, TONE and BAUER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case arises on the petition of Henning Cheadle, Inc. ("the Company") to set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board