Intercon I (Zercom)

29 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 652 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."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,035 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
Director, Off. of Work. Comp. v. Greenwich Collieries
512 U.S. 267 (1994) Cited 445 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
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board
313 U.S. 177 (1941) Cited 871 times
Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”
ABF Freight System, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
510 U.S. 317 (1994) Cited 117 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that assessing the proper punishment for conduct is a policy matter
Nathanson v. Labor Board
344 U.S. 25 (1952) Cited 279 times
Holding that "if one claimant is to be preferred over others, the purpose should be clear from the statute"
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
Soo Line Railroad v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
125 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 1997) Cited 143 times
Holding that at summary judgment "judicial efficiency demands that a party not be allowed to controvert what it has already unequivocally told a court by the most formal and considered means possible."
Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
2 F.3d 1162 (D.C. Cir. 1993) Cited 30 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming bargaining order where company's "large number of unfair labor practices, . . . committed by some of the top officials in the company, and . . . directed at numerous employees . . . instilled a strong fear of union representation in the employees."
Abilene Sheet Metal, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
619 F.2d 332 (5th Cir. 1980) Cited 42 times
Finding substantial evidence to affirm the conclusion that a company foreman was a supervisor

Intercon I (Zercom)

29 Cited authorities

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."

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

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

Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

Recognizing that assessing the proper punishment for conduct is a policy matter

Holding that "if one claimant is to be preferred over others, the purpose should be clear from the statute"

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

Holding that at summary judgment "judicial efficiency demands that a party not be allowed to controvert what it has already unequivocally told a court by the most formal and considered means possible."

Affirming bargaining order where company's "large number of unfair labor practices, . . . committed by some of the top officials in the company, and . . . directed at numerous employees . . . instilled a strong fear of union representation in the employees."

Finding substantial evidence to affirm the conclusion that a company foreman was a supervisor