§

D&F Industries, Inc.

339 N.L.R.B. 618 (N.L.R.B. 2003)
D&F Industries, Inc.

7 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. 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

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc.

    691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982)   Cited 339 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that joint employer situation exists only when "two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees . . . [where] they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment"

  4. FPC Holdings, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    64 F.3d 935 (4th Cir. 1995)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that company's knowledge of employee's union involvement was properly inferred from the fact that the employees discussed a planned union meeting openly in the company's warehouse and over the company's CB radio at a time when the company was closely monitoring one of the employee's behavior

  5. 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"

  6. Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966)   Cited 56 times
    Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination

  7. Pergament United Sales, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 20 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "due process is satisfied when a complaint gives a respondent fair notice . . . and when the conduct implicated in the alleged violation has been fully and fairly litigated"