§

C.P. Associates, Inc.

336 N.L.R.B. 167 (N.L.R.B. 2001)
C.P. Associates, Inc.

9 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. Town & Country Electric, Inc.

    516 U.S. 85 (1995)   Cited 85 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding "employee," as defined by the NLRA, "does not exclude paid union organizers"

  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. Uforma/Shelby Business Forms, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    111 F.3d 1284 (6th Cir. 1997)   Cited 93 times
    Holding that "Rule 408 does not exclude evidence of alleged threats to retaliate for protected activity when the statements occurred during negotiations focused on the protected activity and the evidence serves to prove liability either for making, or later acting upon, the threats" because the evidence was not introduced in order to prove the validity of the grievance which served as the subject of the negotiations

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Joy Recovery Tech

    134 F.3d 1307 (7th Cir. 1998)   Cited 28 times
    Concluding that "[i]n this case, timing is everything," where "[t]he closing of the department comes on the heels of the union's organizational activity," including filing a petition for a representation election

  6. Abbey's Transp. Services, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    837 F.2d 575 (2d Cir. 1988)   Cited 25 times
    Finding violation when interrogator was a "lawyer-consultant"

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hicks Oils & Hicksgas, Inc.

    942 F.2d 1140 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 3 times

    No. 89-2795. Argued January 14, 1991. Decided September 4, 1991. Barbara A. Atkin, Judith P. Flower, N.L.R.B., Contempt Litigation Branch, Aileen A. Armstrong, William A. Baudler (argued), N.L.R.B., Appellate Court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, D.C., Joseph H. Solien, N.L.R.B., Region 14, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner. Gary A. Wincek (argued), William L. Becker, Laner, Muchin, Dombrow, Becker, Levin Tominberg, Chicago, Ill., Nancy M. Watkins, Wilburn, Suggs Watkins, St. Louis, Mo., for respondent

  8. Stephens Institute v. N.L.R.B

    620 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1980)   Cited 9 times
    Upholding findings that sections 8 and had been violated, without separate analysis, in a single paragraph discussing dominant motive test

  9. Rule 408 - Compromise Offers and Negotiations

    Fed. R. Evid. 408   Cited 4,402 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that premature deliberations constituted an internal jury influence subject to the post-verdict restrictions of Rule 606(b)