§

Exxon Mobile Corp.

343 N.L.R.B. 44 (N.L.R.B. 2004)
Exxon Mobile Corp.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

    465 U.S. 822 (1984)   Cited 206 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection

  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. Labor Board v. Burnup Sims

    379 U.S. 21 (1964)   Cited 106 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

  4. Consolidated Diesel Co. v. N.L.R.B

    263 F.3d 345 (4th Cir. 2001)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that "[t]here would be nothing left of [the Act's] rights if every time employees exercised them in a way that was somehow offensive to someone," they were subject to the threat of discipline

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thor Power Tool Co.

    351 F.2d 584 (7th Cir. 1965)   Cited 68 times
    Concluding that "when the entire record is considered there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that [employee's] discharge was the result of his having presented a grievance to the management" even though employee was overheard referring to company's superintendent as "the horse's ass" and was thereafter summarily discharged

  6. Roadmaster Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    874 F.2d 448 (7th Cir. 1989)   Cited 24 times
    In Roadmaster Corp. v. NLRB, 874 F.2d 448, 451-54 (7th Cir.1989), the Seventh Circuit held that a union official who signed an employee's name to a grievance without the employee's permission was entitled to the protection of the NLRA. More recently, in OPW Fueling Components v. NLRB, 443 F.3d 490, 493-97 (6th Cir.2006), the Sixth Circuit held that a union official who signed the names of two involuntarily transferred employees to a grievance without their permission was entitled to the protection of the NLRA.

  7. 6 West Ltd. Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    237 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that employer's discharge of employee did not violate NLRA because "companies must be able to discharge a thief or an untruthful employee"

  8. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. N.L.R.B

    638 F.2d 140 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 5 times

    No. 79-7239. Argued and Submitted July 9, 1980. Decided March 2, 1981. Michael Salinsky, San Francisco, Cal., argued for petitioner; William W. Watkins, San Francisco, Cal., on brief. Dan Siegel and Fred Harvard, Washington, D.C., for respondent; Elliott Moore, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Jonathan Siegel, Siegel, Meyers, Siegel, Friedman Dickstein, Oakland, Cal., on brief. On Review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before DUNIWAY, TANG and CANBY, Circuit Judges. TANG, Circuit Judge. The question

  9. Shell Oil Company v. N.L.R.B

    561 F.2d 1196 (5th Cir. 1977)   Cited 2 times

    No. 76-4234. Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I. October 27, 1977. Rehearing Denied December 19, 1977. Lawrence J. Molony, Alvin B. Gibson, Atty., Shell Oil Co., New Orleans, La., for petitioner-cross respondent. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Carl L. Taylor, Associate Gen. Counsel, Kenneth B. Hipp, Supervisor

  10. May Dept. Stores Co. v. N.L.R.B

    555 F.2d 1338 (6th Cir. 1977)   Cited 1 times

    No. 75-2415. Argued February 8, 1977. Decided May 23, 1977. K. R. Millisor, Millisor, Rice Nobil Co., L. P. A., Akron, Ohio, for petitioner. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Morton Namrow, Carol De Deo, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before EDWARDS and PECK, Circuit Judges, and SILER, District Judge. Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky

  11. Rule 105 - Limiting Evidence That Is Not Admissible Against Other Parties or for Other Purposes

    Fed. R. Evid. 105   Cited 652 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing district court's power to admit evidence for a limited purpose