Kunja Knitting Mills U.S.A.

12 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 657 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."
Labor Board v. Brown
380 U.S. 278 (1965) Cited 473 times 2 Legal Analyses
Approving finding of § 8 violation when "employers' conduct is demonstrably so destructive of employee rights and so devoid of significant service to any legitimate business end that it cannot be tolerated consistently with the Act"
American Ship Bldg. v. Labor Board
380 U.S. 300 (1965) Cited 352 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.
388 U.S. 26 (1967) Cited 323 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
Labor Board v. Erie Resistor Corp.
373 U.S. 221 (1963) Cited 359 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"
Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.
369 U.S. 404 (1962) Cited 298 times
Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"
N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 358 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
Teamsters Local v. Labor Board
365 U.S. 667 (1961) Cited 174 times
Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria
Hendrix Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B
321 F.2d 100 (5th Cir. 1963) Cited 91 times
Permitting the Board to consider the employer's clear expression of opposition to the union as background in order to determine motivation for management's conduct
Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966) Cited 56 times
Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination

Kunja Knitting Mills U.S.A.

12 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."

Approving finding of § 8 violation when "employers' conduct is demonstrably so destructive of employee rights and so devoid of significant service to any legitimate business end that it cannot be tolerated consistently with the Act"

Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful

Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

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

Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

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

Holding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria

Permitting the Board to consider the employer's clear expression of opposition to the union as background in order to determine motivation for management's conduct

Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination