INTERMODAL BRIDGE TRANSPORT

25 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"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United Insurance Co. of America
390 U.S. 254 (1968) Cited 326 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that "all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive"
Labor Board v. Erie Resistor Corp.
373 U.S. 221 (1963) Cited 358 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"
Holly Farms Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
517 U.S. 392 (1996) Cited 136 times
Holding that where statute's meaning is obvious, courts and Board must defer to Congress's unambiguous intent, but where ambiguity exists, courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute
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
N.L.R.B. v. McCullough Environmental Serv
5 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1993) Cited 98 times
Concluding that statement that "things were going to get a lot tougher around here" upon unionization constituted a threat
Fedex Home Delivery v. N.L.R.B.
563 F.3d 492 (D.C. Cir. 2009) Cited 35 times 20 Legal Analyses
Reversing agency decision that FedEx drivers were employees
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ingredion Inc.
930 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir. 2019) Cited 14 times
Finding no reason to reverse the Board's decision where the company "received a ‘full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter’ " and failed to identify any instance of prejudice

INTERMODAL BRIDGE TRANSPORT

25 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 "all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive"

Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"

Holding that where statute's meaning is obvious, courts and Board must defer to Congress's unambiguous intent, but where ambiguity exists, courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute

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

Concluding that statement that "things were going to get a lot tougher around here" upon unionization constituted a threat

Reversing agency decision that FedEx drivers were employees

Finding no reason to reverse the Board's decision where the company "received a ‘full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter’ " and failed to identify any instance of prejudice