§

Coffman Specialties, Inc.

28-CA-223779 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 30, 2019)
Coffman Specialties, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,675 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

  2. 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."

  3. 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

  4. 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

  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. 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."

  7. W.F. Bolin Co. v. N.L.R.B

    70 F.3d 863 (6th Cir. 1995)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that an "inference of improper employer motivation" is permitted when an employer has terminated an employee who acted as a leader in making complaints to management on behalf of himself or others, or has organized workers on employment issues

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Interboro Contractors, Inc.

    388 F.2d 495 (2d Cir. 1967)   Cited 80 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Interboro Contractors, Inc., 388 F.2d 495, 500 (2d Cir. 1967), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that the efforts of an individual employee acting alone to enforce the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement may be deemed "concerted," and thus protected, at least when the individual's interpretation of the agreement has a reasonable basis.

  9. Bruce Packing Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    795 F.3d 18 (D.C. Cir. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    Nos. 12–1054 12–1137. 07-24-2015 BRUCE PACKING COMPANY, INC., Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Laborers' International Union of North America, Local No. 296, AFL–CIO, Intervenor. Bryan P. O'Connor argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Joseph E. Schuler and Joel J. Borovsky. Nicole Lancia, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy

  10. 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”