§

J&S Electrical Contractors, Inc

04-CA-031461 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 16, 2003)
J&S Electrical Contractors, Inc

13 Cited authorities

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,674 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

  2. Conso. Beef Indus. v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co.

    503 U.S. 985 (1992)   Cited 175 times
    Standing does not exist if future injury is too speculative — if the record provides little indication that the plaintiffs had firm intentions to "take action that would trigger the challenged governmental action" or that if they did, "they would be subjected to the challenged governmental action"

  3. 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."

  4. 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

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Mini-Togs, Inc.

    980 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1993)   Cited 19 times

    No. 91-5057. January 12, 1993. Robert Herman, Aileen A. Armstrong, Charles Donnelly, Dep. Assoc. Gen. Cnsl., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. David Hagaman, Robert E. Rigrish, Clark, Paul, Hoover Mallard, Atlanta, Ga., for Mini-Togs, Inc. H. Frank Malone, Dir., Region 15, N.L.R.B., New Orleans, La., for Other Interested Parties. Appeal from National Labor Relations Board. Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOHNSON

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pneu Electric, Inc.

    309 F.3d 843 (5th Cir. 2002)   Cited 6 times

    No. 01-60360. October 10, 2002. Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Eric David Duryea (argued), Charles P. Donnelly, NLRB, Washington, DC, Rodney D. Johnson, NLRB, New Orleans, LA, for NLRB. Charles H. Hollis (argued), Sam Zurik, III, The Kullman Firm, New Orleans, LA, for Pneu Elec. Inc. Gregg R. Kronenberger (argued), Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan Jarman, Baton Rouge, LA, for Nan Ya Plastics Corp. Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations

  7. Litton Microwave Cooking Products v. N.L.R.B

    949 F.2d 249 (8th Cir. 1991)   Cited 12 times
    Recognizing that mandamus may issue in that situation

  8. Burger King Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    725 F.2d 1053 (6th Cir. 1984)   Cited 17 times
    Noting that the challenged policy must be enforced in a “consistent and nondiscriminatory fashion”

  9. Jeannette Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    532 F.2d 916 (3d Cir. 1976)   Cited 25 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Sustaining the Board's finding that the employer's rule broadly prohibiting wage discussions was an unfair labor practice under § 8, reasoning that "wage discussions can be protected activity and that an employer's unqualified rule barring such discussions has the tendency to inhibit such activity"

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Vought Corp.—MLRS Systems Division

    788 F.2d 1378 (8th Cir. 1986)   Cited 9 times

    No. 85-1271. Submitted November 15, 1985. Decided April 21, 1986. John B. Shepard, Dallas, Tex., for respondent. Jesse Gill, of the N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Petition from National Labor Relations Board. Before HEANEY, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges. HEANEY, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order which found that Vought Corporation — MLRS Systems Division (the Company) committed several violations of sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3)