19 Cited authorities
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 652 times 11 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 AnalysesHolding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 265 times 4 Legal AnalysesApproving "discovery-type standard"
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 AnalysesHolding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.
351 U.S. 149 (1956) Cited 223 times 8 Legal AnalysesHolding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith
Ezekwo v. Amer. Bd. of I. M
173 F.3d 844 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 160 timesFinding that plaintiff "failed to effect proper service" and noting that "'leave and mail' service under Section 308 is ineffective where a plaintiff does not file proof of service with the clerk within twenty days of the date on which the process server mailed the summons and complaint"
W.F. Bolin Co. v. N.L.R.B
70 F.3d 863 (6th Cir. 1995) Cited 48 timesHolding 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
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Grand Canyon Mining Co.
116 F.3d 1039 (4th Cir. 1997) Cited 36 times 1 Legal AnalysesNo. 96-1990, 96-2089. Argued May 7, 1997. Decided June 27, 1997. On Application for Enforcement and Cross-Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. (11-CA-15801, 11-CA-16059). ARGUED: Jeffrey Lawrence Horowitz, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Matthew Woodruff Sawchak, SMITH, HELMS, MULLISS MOORE, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Frederick L. Feinstein, General Counsel, Linda Sher, Associate General Counsel, Aileen
California Pacific Medical v. N.L.R.B
87 F.3d 304 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 26 timesNo. 93-71039, 94-70009 Argued and Submitted August 15, 1995, San Francisco, California Filed June 19, 1996 Jerome B. Falk, Jr., Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson, Falk Rabkin, San Francisco, California, for the petitioner-respondent. Richard A. Cohen, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, for the respondent-petitioner. On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. NLRB No. 20-CA-24067. Before: BETTY B. FLETCHER, CECIL F. POOLE, and DIARMUID
L.S.F. Transp., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
282 F.3d 972 (7th Cir. 2002) Cited 15 timesNos. 00-2040, 00-2289. Argued November 29, 2001. Decided March 11, 2002. Petitioned for review of, and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Walter J. Liszka (argued), Wessels Pautsch, Chicago, IL, for petitioner. Elizabeth Kinney, National Labor Relations Board, Chicago, IL, Bridget O'Connor (argued), National Labor Relations Board Appellate Court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, D.C., Aileen Armstrong, National Labor Relations Board Office of the General Counsel, Washington, D.C., for respondent
Section 157 - Right of employees as to organization, collective bargaining, etc.
29 U.S.C. § 157 Cited 3,300 times 97 Legal AnalysesGranting employees the right to engage in or refrain from engaging in union activity