§

Dole Fresh Vegetables

339 N.L.R.B. 785 (N.L.R.B. 2003)
Dole Fresh Vegetables

11 Cited authorities

  1. National Labor Rel. B. v. Kentucky R. Comm. C

    532 U.S. 706 (2001)   Cited 180 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

    388 U.S. 26 (1967)   Cited 322 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.

    389 U.S. 375 (1967)   Cited 233 times
    In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.

  4. 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

  5. Brusco Tug Barge Co. v. N.L.R.B

    247 F.3d 273 (D.C. Cir. 2001)   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 00-1183. Argued January 26, 2001. Decided May 1, 2001. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Thomas M. Triplett argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Karen O'Kasey. Christopher W. Young, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Leonard R. Page, General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Margaret A. Gaines,

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Security Guard Service, Inc.

    384 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1967)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing "the standard reluctance to apply [a statutory] exception broadly"

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc.

    334 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that a single instance of an employee interviewing an applicant and passing along to an undisputed supervisor his opinion of the applicant's experience and knowledge was insufficient to prove supervisory status

  8. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    858 F.2d 756 (D.C. Cir. 1988)   Cited 10 times

    No. 87-1189. Argued February 12, 1988. Decided September 30, 1988. Robert G. Rothstein, of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Michael N. Katz, Philadelphia, Pa., was on the brief, for petitioner. Bernard N. Katz, Philadelphia, Pa., also entered an appearance for petitioner. Linda Dreeben, Attorney, N.L.R.B., with whom Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel and Victoria A. Higman, Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were on

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mike O'Connor Chevrolet-Buick-GMC Co.

    512 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1975)   Cited 16 times

    No. 74-1645. Submitted February 13, 1975. Decided March 18, 1975. Charles A. Shaw, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Charles Kelso, Atlanta, Ga., for respondents. Appeal from the National Labor Relations Board. Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, and WANGELIN and NANGLE, District Judges. H. KENNETH WANGELIN and JOHN F. NANGLE, District Judges, Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation. HEANEY, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second

  11. Section 6621 - Determination of rate of interest

    26 U.S.C. § 6621   Cited 1,873 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Applying a higher interest rate to past liabilities resulting from tax-motivated transactions