§

Eddyleon Chocolate Co.

301 N.L.R.B. 887 (N.L.R.B. 1991)
Eddyleon Chocolate Co.

16 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. Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Comm. Union Assur. Co.

    449 U.S. 871 (1980)   Cited 172 times

    No. 80-73. October 6, 1980. Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 379 So. 2d 757.

  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. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Savair Manufacturing Co.

    414 U.S. 270 (1973)   Cited 123 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that although an employee may not be "legally bound to vote for the union and has not promised to do so in any formal sense" some "would feel obliged " to cast a union vote after having signed a union recognition slip

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Jamaica Towing, Inc.

    632 F.2d 208 (2d Cir. 1980)   Cited 50 times
    Holding that "hallmark" violations of NLRA "include such employer misbehavior as the closing of a plant or threats of plant closure or loss of employment, the grant of benefits to employees, or the reassignment, demotion or discharge of union adherents" and lesser violations "include such employer misconduct as interrogating employees regarding their union sympathies, holding out a `carrot' of promised benefits, expressing anti-union resolve, threatening that unionization will result in decreased benefits, or suggesting that physical force might be used to exclude the union"

  6. Hedstrom Co. v. N.L.R.B

    629 F.2d 305 (3d Cir. 1980)   Cited 43 times
    Affirming the Board's finding that a supervisor's statement was coercive, despite employee testimony suggesting otherwise, because the record supported both interpretations

  7. Hotel Emp. Restaurant Emp. Un. v. N.L.R.B

    760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 26 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Affirming Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176

  8. Larand Leisurelies, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    523 F.2d 814 (6th Cir. 1975)   Cited 37 times

    No. 74-2325. Argued June 10, 1975. Decided October 1, 1975. As Amended October 15, 1975. W. Bruce Baird, Matthew R. Westfall, Middleton, Reutlinger Baird, Louisville, Ky., Jay S. Siegel, Siegel, O'Connor Kainen, Hartford, Conn., for petitioner. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Hope P. Zelasko, Emil C. Farkas, Regional Director, 9th Region, N.L.R.B., Cincinnati, Ohio, for respondent. Herbert L. Segal, Irwin H. Cutler, Jr., Segal, Isenberg, Sales, Stewart Nutt

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Southern Maryland Hosp. Center

    916 F.2d 932 (4th Cir. 1990)   Cited 17 times
    Noting that “the Board has on several occasions found that employers unreasonably chilled the exercise of their employees' Section 7 rights through excessive surveillance”

  10. Elec. Products Div. of Midland-Ross v. N.L.R.B

    617 F.2d 977 (3d Cir. 1980)   Cited 27 times
    In Electrical Products Division of Midland-Ross Corp. v. NLRB, 617 F.2d 977, 987 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 871, 101 S.Ct. 210, 66 L.Ed.2d 91 (1980), we referred to three elements as usually found in these cases where we enforced a Gissel II order: effect of the unfair labor practices on a significant portion of the bargaining unit, the participation of senior company officials, and the continuing impact of the same factors that undermined the first election.

  11. Section 101 - Issuance of restraining orders and injunctions; limitation; public policy

    29 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 1,301 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Stating that no injunction may issue "except in a strict conformity with the provisions of this chapter"