G&T Terminal Packaging Co., Inc.

10 Cited authorities

N.L.R.B. v. G T Terminal Packaging Co.
246 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 37 times
Holding restoration order to be unduly burdensome because company did not have enough space to accommodate the disputed work operation
N.L.R.B. v. Mastro Plastics Corporation
354 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1965) Cited 96 times
In Mastro, the relatives of two deceased discriminatees had testified as to the discriminatees' diligent searches for work.
U.S. Can Co. v. N.L.R.B
254 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2001) Cited 15 times
Finding no prejudice where the obligation of the respondent would have been the same had the NLRB filed its petition for enforcement sooner
N.L.R.B. v. Brown Root, Inc.
311 F.2d 447 (8th Cir. 1963) Cited 71 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Brown Root, Inc., 311 F.2d 447, 454 (C.A. 8), it is said that "in a back pay proceeding the burden is upon the General Counsel to show the gross amounts of back pay due.
N.L.R.B. v. Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Company
360 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. 1966) Cited 51 times
Permitting "non-deduction of supplemental earnings . . . where an employee who had spare-time earnings prior to discharge from his regular job continued in the same spare-time job during his period of discharge," and further holding that as long as employee was "moonlighting before his unlawful discharge," amounts earned in any "spare time employment" should not be used to reduce back-pay award
N.L.R.B. v. Houston Bldg. Services, Inc.
128 F.3d 860 (5th Cir. 1997) Cited 5 times
Indicating that valid "make whole" remedy ordered by NLRB against successor employer who had not signed a collective bargaining agreement did not offend the policies behind section 302(c)
Bagel Bakers Council of Greater N.Y. v. NLRB
555 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1977) Cited 18 times
Holding that costs should not be shifted "from the employers to the employees harmed by illegal conduct"
N.L.R.B. v. Arduini Manufacturing Corp.
394 F.2d 420 (1st Cir. 1968) Cited 24 times
Holding that plaintiffs delay of several days in accepting a job offer demonstrated a lack of reasonable diligence in mitigating damages and tolled plaintiffs right to backpay
Angle v. N.L.R.B
683 F.2d 1296 (10th Cir. 1982) Cited 7 times
Granting the Board's order for enforcement where employer did not present necessary "sufficient credible evidence" to support assertions that Board's calculations were wrong
National Labor Rel. Board v. Cashman Auto Co.
223 F.2d 832 (1st Cir. 1955) Cited 20 times
In NLRB v. Cashman Auto Co., 223 F.2d 832, 836 (1st Cir. 1955), the First Circuit noted, over half a century ago, that the principle of mitigation of damages does not require success; it only requires an honest good faith effort by the complaining party.

G&T Terminal Packaging Co., Inc.

10 Cited authorities

Holding restoration order to be unduly burdensome because company did not have enough space to accommodate the disputed work operation

In Mastro, the relatives of two deceased discriminatees had testified as to the discriminatees' diligent searches for work.

Finding no prejudice where the obligation of the respondent would have been the same had the NLRB filed its petition for enforcement sooner

In N.L.R.B. v. Brown Root, Inc., 311 F.2d 447, 454 (C.A. 8), it is said that "in a back pay proceeding the burden is upon the General Counsel to show the gross amounts of back pay due.

Indicating that valid "make whole" remedy ordered by NLRB against successor employer who had not signed a collective bargaining agreement did not offend the policies behind section 302(c)

Holding that costs should not be shifted "from the employers to the employees harmed by illegal conduct"

Holding that plaintiffs delay of several days in accepting a job offer demonstrated a lack of reasonable diligence in mitigating damages and tolled plaintiffs right to backpay

Granting the Board's order for enforcement where employer did not present necessary "sufficient credible evidence" to support assertions that Board's calculations were wrong

In NLRB v. Cashman Auto Co., 223 F.2d 832, 836 (1st Cir. 1955), the First Circuit noted, over half a century ago, that the principle of mitigation of damages does not require success; it only requires an honest good faith effort by the complaining party.