§

Hahner, Foreman & Harness, Inc.

343 N.L.R.B. 1423 (N.L.R.B. 2004)
Hahner, Foreman & Harness, Inc.

11 Cited authorities

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

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 651 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. 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

  3. 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."

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thor Power Tool Co.

    351 F.2d 584 (7th Cir. 1965)   Cited 68 times
    Concluding that "when the entire record is considered there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that [employee's] discharge was the result of his having presented a grievance to the management" even though employee was overheard referring to company's superintendent as "the horse's ass" and was thereafter summarily discharged

  5. 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”

  6. Ewing v. N.L.R.B

    861 F.2d 353 (2d Cir. 1988)   Cited 23 times
    Approving the Meyers II rule

  7. Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966)   Cited 56 times
    Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination

  8. N.L.R.B. v. So-White Freight Lines, Inc.

    969 F.2d 401 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 13 times

    No. 91-1697. Argued December 11, 1991. Decided July 23, 1992. Paul J. Spielberg, Michael J. Gan (argued), N.L.R.B., Contempt Litigation Branch, Aileen A. Armstrong, N.L.R.B., Appellate Court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, D.C., Joseph A. Szabo, Director, N.L.R.B., Milwaukee, Wis., for petitioner. Paul Cady, Paul J. Zech (argued), Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon Vogt, Minneapolis, Minn., for respondent. Before FLAUM, and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges, and WILL, Senior District Judge. The Honorable Hubert

  9. Mushroom Transportation Company v. N.L.R.B

    330 F.2d 683 (3d Cir. 1964)   Cited 48 times
    In Mushroom Transportation Co. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 683, 685 (3d Cir. 1964), we held that to qualify as concerted activity "it must appear at the very least that [the conduct] was engaged in with the object of initiating or inducing or preparing for group action or that it had some relation to group action in the interest of the employees."

  10. Union-Tribune Pub. Co. v. N.L.R.B

    1 F.3d 486 (7th Cir. 1993)   Cited 10 times

    Nos. 92-1978, 92-2348. Argued January 13, 1993. Decided July 20, 1993. E. Andrew Norwood, Howard M. Kastrinsky, King Ballow, Nashville, TN, Paul H. Duvall (argued), King Ballow, San Diego, CA, for petitioner/cross-respondent. Charles P. Donnelly, Jr., John C. Truesdale, John Fawley (argued), N.L.R.B., Contempt Litigation Branch, Aileen A. Armstrong, William M. Bernstein, N.L.R.B., Appellate Court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, DC, Robert R. Petering, N.L.R.B., Counsel for the Gen. Counsel,