Dauman Pallet, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

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."
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"
Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Labor Board
350 U.S. 270 (1956) Cited 403 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"
Labor Board v. Deena Artware
361 U.S. 398 (1960) Cited 139 times
Ruling that derivative liability could be imposed on the basis of single employer status
Southport Pet., Co. v. N.L.R.B
315 U.S. 100 (1942) Cited 187 times
Ruling that dissolution of company and transfer of assets did not prevent enforcement of a Board order
Southwest Regional Jt. Bd., v. N.L.R.B
441 F.2d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1970) Cited 17 times
Finding that the "proper question `is not whether an employee actually felt intimidated but whether the employer engaged in conduct which may reasonably be said to tend to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act'" (quoting Joy Silk Mills, supra, 185 F.2d at 743-44)
National Labor Rel. Board v. Hopwood Retinning
104 F.2d 302 (2d Cir. 1939) Cited 41 times
In NLRB v. Hopwood Retinning Co., 104 F.2d 302 (2d Cir. 1939), the employer had locked out and discharged employees because of their union activity.
Storkline Corporation v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.
298 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1962) Cited 6 times
No. 19110. January 18, 1962. Richard C. Keenan, New Orleans, La., Joe Jack Hurst, Jackson, Miss., Wells, Thomas Wells, Jackson, Miss., Kullman Lang, New Orleans, La., for appellant. Melvin Pollack, Atty., N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Herman I. Branse, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and RIVES and WISDOM, Circuit
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Efco Manufacturing, Inc.
227 F.2d 675 (1st Cir. 1955) Cited 9 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Efco Manufacturing Co., 227 F.2d 675, 676 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 1007, 76 S.Ct. 651, 100 L.Ed. 869 (1955), a striker's threat to beat up a plant manager was considered not egregious because the manager was not put in direct fear of a beating.

Dauman Pallet, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

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."

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"

Ruling that derivative liability could be imposed on the basis of single employer status

Ruling that dissolution of company and transfer of assets did not prevent enforcement of a Board order

Finding that the "proper question `is not whether an employee actually felt intimidated but whether the employer engaged in conduct which may reasonably be said to tend to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act'" (quoting Joy Silk Mills, supra, 185 F.2d at 743-44)

In NLRB v. Hopwood Retinning Co., 104 F.2d 302 (2d Cir. 1939), the employer had locked out and discharged employees because of their union activity.

In N.L.R.B. v. Efco Manufacturing Co., 227 F.2d 675, 676 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 1007, 76 S.Ct. 651, 100 L.Ed. 869 (1955), a striker's threat to beat up a plant manager was considered not egregious because the manager was not put in direct fear of a beating.