§

Golden State Warriors

334 N.L.R.B. 651 (N.L.R.B. 2001)
Golden State Warriors

13 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. Director, Off. of Work. Comp. v. Greenwich Collieries

    512 U.S. 267 (1994)   Cited 450 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under the Administrative Procedure Act, the burden of proof encompasses the burden of persuasion; when the evidence is evenly balanced, the party with the burden must lose

  3. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 712 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc.

    494 U.S. 775 (1990)   Cited 177 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Board has "considerable deference" in determining the legal rule to apply and should be upheld "as long as it is rational and consistent with the Act"

  5. Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.

    356 U.S. 342 (1958)   Cited 296 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."

  6. 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

  7. Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    517 U.S. 781 (1996)   Cited 59 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NLRB is due "considerable deference . . . by virtue of its charge to develop national labor policy"

  8. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    843 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1988)   Cited 119 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding review of the Board's decision to apply a new rule of law retrospectively is deferential and that the Board's ruling will be disturbed only if it wreaks manifest injustice

  9. Schaeff Inc. v. National Labor Relations Bd.

    113 F.3d 264 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 13 times

    No. 96-1190 Argued February 10, 1997 Decided May 27, 1997 Gerald M. Richardson, St. Louis, MO, argued the cause, for petitioner. Angela M. Washington, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause, for respondent. Linda R. Sher, Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Frederick C. Havard, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, were on brief. David A. Seid, Attorney, Washington, DC, National Labor Relations Board, entered an appearance

  10. Terrell Machine Company v. N.L.R.B

    427 F.2d 1088 (4th Cir. 1970)   Cited 47 times

    No. 13371. Argued December 2, 1969. Decided January 20, 1970. William W. Sturges, Charlotte, N.C. (Weinstein, Waggoner, Sturges Odom, Charlotte, N.C., on the brief), for petitioner. Thomas E. Silfen, Atty., N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and John D. Burgoyne, Atty., N.L.R.B., on the brief), for respondent. Before SOBELOFF and WINTER, Circuit Judges, and HARVEY, District Judge. WINTER, Circuit Judge: