Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.

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."

Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.

Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

N.L.R.B. v. Vemco, Inc.

Holding that an employer's statement that unionization would result in a work shortage resulting in reduced hours or layoffs was a permissible, objective prediction, and thus protected speech under § 8(c), where nothing suggested that the expected work shortage "was within [the employer's] control" or that the employer "would implement a cutback in hours or a layoff solely on its own initiative for reasons unrelated to the economic necessity of adjusting to a shortage of work"

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ayer Lar Sanitarium

In NLRB v. Ayer Lar Sanitarium, supra, 436 F.2d at 50, we said that the "test is whether the business reason or the... union activity is the moving cause behind the discharge.

N.L.R.B. v. Rain-Ware, Inc.

Concluding that "[t]he timing of the layoffs and warehouse closing provides the strongest support for connecting anti-union sentiment with the layoffs," where the layoffs and warehouse closing closely followed a demand for union recognition

Wyman-Gordon Co. v. N.L.R.B

Finding statement that "bargaining would 'begin at zero' and work up" constituted a violation of § 8

Blankenship and Associates, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

Holding that since consultant based in Indiana rendered services to company based in Pennsylvania, "no more was required to put [the consultant's] activities within interstate commerce" and therefore within the Board's statutory jurisdiction under NLRA § 10 (citing Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., 371 U.S. at 226-27, 83 S.Ct. 312)