§

K.W. Electric, Inc.

342 N.L.R.B. 1231 (N.L.R.B. 2004)
K.W. Electric, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

  1. 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."

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,036 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  3. National Labor Rel. B. v. Kentucky R. Comm. C

    532 U.S. 706 (2001)   Cited 181 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit

  4. Bridgeport v. Assn. Against Discrim

    455 U.S. 988 (1982)   Cited 138 times
    Granting summary judgment in defendant's favor in antitrust case, finding "no significant probative evidence of a conspiracy"

  5. 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

  6. U.S. v. Parks

    100 F.3d 1300 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 26 times
    In Parks, the prosecution gave the defendants copies of sixty-five hours of recorded conversations, which were in English but were hard to understand due to the slang and expressions used by the speakers, but provided transcripts of only the four hours it intended to use at trial.

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Overnite Transp. Co.

    938 F.2d 815 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that employer engaged in surface bargaining despite the fact employer had attended six bargaining sessions with union, commented on proposals, offered counterproposals, and maintained bargaining stance that had at least some merit, because vice president of employer expressly stated that employer would not sign contract with union, openly threatened to shut down terminal in order to defeat union, and implied that employer would force strike situation and permanently dismiss those employees who left to join picket lines

  8. Ohio Power Co. v. N.L.R.B

    176 F.2d 385 (6th Cir. 1949)   Cited 64 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plain and unambiguous text must be applied as written without resort to construction