§

Ellison Media Co.

344 N.L.R.B. 1112 (N.L.R.B. 2005)
Ellison Media Co.

9 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. Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.

    369 U.S. 404 (1962)   Cited 298 times
    Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

  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. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 80 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

  5. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 27 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

  6. Ewing v. N.L.R.B

    861 F.2d 353 (2d Cir. 1988)   Cited 23 times
    Approving the Meyers II rule

  7. Mushroom Transportation Company v. N.L.R.B

    330 F.2d 683 (3d Cir. 1964)   Cited 48 times
    In Mushroom Transportation Co. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 683, 685 (3d Cir. 1964), we held that to qualify as concerted activity "it must appear at the very least that [the conduct] was engaged in with the object of initiating or inducing or preparing for group action or that it had some relation to group action in the interest of the employees."

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Vought Corp.—MLRS Systems Division

    788 F.2d 1378 (8th Cir. 1986)   Cited 9 times

    No. 85-1271. Submitted November 15, 1985. Decided April 21, 1986. John B. Shepard, Dallas, Tex., for respondent. Jesse Gill, of the N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Petition from National Labor Relations Board. Before HEANEY, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges. HEANEY, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order which found that Vought Corporation — MLRS Systems Division (the Company) committed several violations of sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3)

  9. Hughes Properties v. N.L.R.B

    758 F.2d 1320 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 5 times
    Discussing solicitation in cafeteria on employer's property during non-working hours