§

Custom Window Extrusions

314 N.L.R.B. 850 (N.L.R.B. 1994)
Custom Window Extrusions

11 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. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,035 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

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

    989 F.2d 1468 (6th Cir. 1993)   Cited 24 times
    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"

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

    732 F.2d 1349 (7th Cir. 1984)   Cited 20 times
    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

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Horizon Air Services, Inc.

    761 F.2d 22 (1st Cir. 1985)   Cited 18 times
    Affirming bargaining order because the egregious actions of the employer "constitute a more than ample basis for a sound inference of future interference and/or enduring aftereffects"

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Laredo Coca Cola Bottling Co.

    613 F.2d 1338 (5th Cir. 1980)   Cited 19 times
    Finding that invitations to employees to disclose their union activities and sympathies constitute interrogation

  8. Gardner v. Bishop

    983 F.2d 1056 (4th Cir. 1993)   Cited 3 times
    Finding assertions of prejudice insufficient to overcome burden of proving waiver where petitioner filed motion to stay pending arbitration thirteen months after he brought the suit, the parties had progressed with discovery, and separate proceedings raised the possibility of inconsistent verdicts

  9. Lemon Drop Inn, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    752 F.2d 323 (8th Cir. 1985)   Cited 6 times

    No. 84-5083. Submitted December 14, 1984. Decided January 9, 1985. J. Dennis O'Brien, Minneapolis, Minn., for petitioner. Elliott Moore, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition for review of order from the National Labor Relations Board. Before HEANEY, ROSS and FAGG, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. The National Labor Relations Board, affirming a decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ), found that the Lemon Drop Inn, Inc., violated the National Labor Relations Act (N.L.R.A

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bell Aircraft Corp.

    206 F.2d 235 (2d Cir. 1953)   Cited 38 times
    In Bell, the employee was promoted voluntarily, while in Golden Bottle and Oil, Chemical, the position from which the employee was discharged became supervisory after the discharge.