J & G Wall Baking Co, Inc

14 Cited authorities

Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle
429 U.S. 274 (1977) Cited 9,174 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding if a plaintiff can show a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation, the district court should go on to determine whether the defendant has shown "by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision ... even in the absence of the protected conduct"
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. J. Weingarten, Inc.
420 U.S. 251 (1975) Cited 434 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness
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"
Machinists Local v. Labor Board
362 U.S. 411 (1960) Cited 276 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely
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
Conair Corp. v. N.L.R.B
721 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 1983) Cited 48 times
In Conair, the Board, in marked contrast to this case, had specifically found that no other remedy could "dissipate the lingering effects of [Conair's] massive and unrelenting coercive conduct" which "ha[d] foreclosed any possibility of holding a fair representation election."
N.L.R.B. v. Jamaica Towing, Inc.
632 F.2d 208 (2d Cir. 1980) Cited 50 times
Holding that "hallmark" violations of NLRA "include such employer misbehavior as the closing of a plant or threats of plant closure or loss of employment, the grant of benefits to employees, or the reassignment, demotion or discharge of union adherents" and lesser violations "include such employer misconduct as interrogating employees regarding their union sympathies, holding out a `carrot' of promised benefits, expressing anti-union resolve, threatening that unionization will result in decreased benefits, or suggesting that physical force might be used to exclude the union"
Hedstrom Co. v. N.L.R.B
558 F.2d 1137 (3d Cir. 1977) Cited 32 times
Holding statements made by low-level supervisor to be coercive

J & G Wall Baking Co, Inc

14 Cited authorities

Holding if a plaintiff can show a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation, the district court should go on to determine whether the defendant has shown "by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision ... even in the absence of the protected conduct"

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 an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness

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 “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely

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

In Conair, the Board, in marked contrast to this case, had specifically found that no other remedy could "dissipate the lingering effects of [Conair's] massive and unrelenting coercive conduct" which "ha[d] foreclosed any possibility of holding a fair representation election."

Holding statements made by low-level supervisor to be coercive