Horseshoe Bossier City Hotel & Casino

22 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bell Aerospace Co.
416 U.S. 267 (1974) Cited 759 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that an agency is "not precluded from announcing new principles in an adjudicative proceeding"
National Labor Rel. B. v. Kentucky R. Comm. C
532 U.S. 706 (2001) Cited 180 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit
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."
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
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
Kaplan v. Burroughs Corp.
447 U.S. 924 (1980) Cited 121 times
Modifying preliminary injunction to allow sale of existing inventory
Orders v. Stotts
459 U.S. 969 (1982) Cited 66 times
No. 82-204. November 1, 1982. C.A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 679 F. 2d 579.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Grand Canyon Mining Co.
116 F.3d 1039 (4th Cir. 1997) Cited 36 times 1 Legal Analyses
No. 96-1990, 96-2089. Argued May 7, 1997. Decided June 27, 1997. On Application for Enforcement and Cross-Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. (11-CA-15801, 11-CA-16059). ARGUED: Jeffrey Lawrence Horowitz, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Matthew Woodruff Sawchak, SMITH, HELMS, MULLISS MOORE, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Frederick L. Feinstein, General Counsel, Linda Sher, Associate General Counsel, Aileen
Charter Commc'ns v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
939 F.3d 798 (6th Cir. 2019) Cited 5 times
Holding that even a time period of three months can "raise concerns" about animus
Conley v. N.L.R.B
520 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2008) Cited 13 times
Finding anti-union animus when employer terminated an employee for previously tolerated conduct

Horseshoe Bossier City Hotel & Casino

22 Cited authorities

Holding that an agency is "not precluded from announcing new principles in an adjudicative proceeding"

Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit

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

Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

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

Modifying preliminary injunction to allow sale of existing inventory

Holding that even a time period of three months can "raise concerns" about animus

Finding anti-union animus when employer terminated an employee for previously tolerated conduct