§
Flying Foods

16 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. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,036 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  3. Labor Board v. Insurance Agents

    361 U.S. 477 (1960)   Cited 325 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"

  4. Brooks v. Labor Board

    348 U.S. 96 (1954)   Cited 301 times
    Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board

  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. Bockes v. Fields

    510 U.S. 1092 (1994)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 93-818. January 24, 1994, October TERM, 1993. C.A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 999 F. 2d 788.

  7. Vincent Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    209 F.3d 727 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 44 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Vincent Industrial, we directed the Board to premise every bargaining order on an "explicit[ balanc[ing][of] three considerations: (1) the employees' Section 7 rights [ 29 U.S.C. § 157]; (2) whether other purposes of the [NLRA] override the rights of employees to choose their bargaining representatives; and (3) whether alternative remedies are adequate to remedy the violations of the [NLRA]]."

  8. Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    117 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that, "[b]ecause affirmative bargaining orders interfere with the employee free choice that is a core principle of the Act," we "view them with suspicion" and demand special justification for them

  9. Exxel/Atmos, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    28 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1994)   Cited 28 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stressing appropriateness of bargaining order to remedy bad faith bargaining during certification year

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Erie Brush and Mfg. Corp.

    406 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2005)   Cited 12 times

    No. 04-1503. Argued September 30, 2004. Decided May 2, 2005. Christopher W. Young (argued), Robert J. Englehart, Washington, DC, Harvey A. Roth, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner. Irving M. Geslewitz (argued), Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament Rubenstein, Chicago, IL, for Respondent. Before ROVNER, WOOD and SYKES, Circuit Judges. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge. The employees of Erie Brush and Manufacturing Corporation ("Erie Brush") voted to accept the Service Employees International Union, Local