G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

17 Cited authorities

Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith
487 U.S. 1205 (1988) Cited 105 times 6 Legal Analyses
Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption
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
Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
502 U.S. 814 (1991) Cited 78 times
No. 90-1805. October 7, 1991, OCTOBER TERM, 1991. C.A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 924 F. 2d 539.
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."
Bourne v. N.L.R.B
332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964) Cited 93 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.
S F Market St. Healthcare LLC v. N.L.R.B
570 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2009) Cited 10 times
No. 07-1439, 07-1502. Argued November 17, 2008. Decided June 30, 2009. John H. Douglas argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner. Amy H. Ginn, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Ronald E. Meisburg, General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Jill A. Griffin, Supervisory Attorney. Meredith L. Jason and Jason Walta, Attorneys, entered appearances. Before:
Cintas Corp. v. N.L.R.B
482 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 2007) Cited 12 times 2 Legal Analyses
Upholding National Labor Relations Board determination that an employer's rule that was likely to chill employees' discussion of wages constituted an unfair labor practice under the NLRA
Jackson Hosp. Corp. v. N.L.R.B
647 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011) Cited 6 times
Explaining that “[l]ong ago” the NLRB “clarified” that an employee has no right to bring a witness to a meeting, the “sole purpose” of which is to deliver a predetermined warning
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”

G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

17 Cited authorities

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

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."

In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

Upholding National Labor Relations Board determination that an employer's rule that was likely to chill employees' discussion of wages constituted an unfair labor practice under the NLRA

Explaining that “[l]ong ago” the NLRB “clarified” that an employee has no right to bring a witness to a meeting, the “sole purpose” of which is to deliver a predetermined warning

Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”