§

Lear Siegler, Inc.

295 N.L.R.B. 857 (N.L.R.B. 1989)
Lear Siegler, Inc.

18 Cited authorities

  1. 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."

  2. Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board

    379 U.S. 203 (1964)   Cited 731 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

  3. Textile Workers v. Darlington Co.

    380 U.S. 263 (1965)   Cited 168 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer has the absolute right, at least as far as the NLRA is concerned, to terminate his entire business for any reason

  4. Carrier Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    768 F.2d 778 (6th Cir. 1985)   Cited 78 times
    Holding that companies are joint employers when "two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees-where from the evidence it can be shown that they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment"

  5. Teamsters Local Union No. 171 v. N.L.R.B

    863 F.2d 946 (D.C. Cir. 1988)   Cited 40 times
    Explaining that an "undue hardship" requires "significant mitigating circumstances"

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Jacob E. Decker and Sons

    569 F.2d 357 (5th Cir. 1978)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that "new evidence" discovered after trial does not warrant a new trial when its only purpose would be to impeach a witness

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Fort Vancouver Plywood Co.

    604 F.2d 596 (9th Cir. 1979)   Cited 42 times
    In Fort Vancouver, we noted that the Board's order required the reinstatement of exactly 72 discharged workers, leaving no possibility for the employer to litigate whether or not the workers would have been laid off in spite of the violations.

  8. Woodline Motor Freight, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    843 F.2d 285 (8th Cir. 1988)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that the restoration order was not unduly burdensome where it "would not require capital investment disproportionate to [the employer's] resources or impose substantial, continuing losses"

  9. Great Chinese Am. Sewing Co. v. N.L.R.B

    578 F.2d 251 (9th Cir. 1978)   Cited 35 times
    Holding Board's failure to order restoration of sewing plant was not abuse of discretion in light of trend in garment industry to subcontract sewing work to low-cost foreign companies

  10. Elec. Products Div. of Midland-Ross v. N.L.R.B

    617 F.2d 977 (3d Cir. 1980)   Cited 27 times
    In Electrical Products Division of Midland-Ross Corp. v. NLRB, 617 F.2d 977, 987 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 871, 101 S.Ct. 210, 66 L.Ed.2d 91 (1980), we referred to three elements as usually found in these cases where we enforced a Gissel II order: effect of the unfair labor practices on a significant portion of the bargaining unit, the participation of senior company officials, and the continuing impact of the same factors that undermined the first election.