§

Finch, Pruyn & Company, Inc.

03-CA-023461 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 26, 2004)
Finch, Pruyn & Company, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 657 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. Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board

    379 U.S. 203 (1964)   Cited 734 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

  3. First National Maintenance Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    452 U.S. 666 (1981)   Cited 270 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer has no duty to bargain over a decision to shut down part of its business purely for economic reasons

  4. Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    440 U.S. 301 (1979)   Cited 228 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union's request for employee aptitude tests was relevant to its claim, but employer's interest in preserving confidentiality was also legitimate, and disclosing the information only upon the employee's written consent was a reasonable accommodation

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 358 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  6. Soule Glass and Glazing Co. v. N.L.R.B

    652 F.2d 1055 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 97 times
    Holding that the employer "must bargain with respect to the decision to remove work from bargaining unit employees, not merely its effects on the employees"

  7. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    711 F.2d 348 (D.C. Cir. 1983)   Cited 41 times

    Nos. 82-1418 to 82-1420, 82-1743, 82-1589 and 82-1940. Argued May 5, 1983. Decided June 30, 1983. George H. Cohen, with whom Laurence Gold, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for petitioners, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, Local Union No. 6-418, AFL-CIO, et al. George J. Tichy, II, San Francisco, Cal., with whom Robert K. Carrol, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner, Borden Chemical, A Division of Borden, Inc. Howard A. Crawford, with whom Jack D. Rowe, Kansas City, Mo., was on brief, for petitioner

  8. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 150-A v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    1 F.3d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1993)   Cited 26 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court may not certify a class without ruling that each Rule 23 requirement is met, even if a requirement overlaps with a merits issue

  9. Dallas Gen. Drivers, W. H., L. v. N.L.R.B

    355 F.2d 842 (D.C. Cir. 1966)   Cited 40 times
    Reviewing factors considered in impasse cases

  10. Land Air Delivery, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    862 F.2d 354 (D.C. Cir. 1988)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 87-1758. Argued October 3, 1988. Decided December 2, 1988. Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. David Leightty, with whom Louis J. Amato, Louisville, Ky., was on the brief, for petitioner. Joseph A. Oertel, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, and Howard E. Perlstein, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were on the brief for respondent. Before RUTH BADER GINSBURG and SILBERMAN, Circuit Judges, and MILTON POLLACK, Senior