§

Lifeway Foods, Inc.

364 NLRB No. 145 (N.L.R.B. 2016)
Lifeway Foods, Inc.

10 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. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Canning

    573 U.S. 513 (2014)   Cited 274 times   150 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because there was no quorum of validly appointed board members, the NLRB “lacked authority to act,” and the enforcement order was therefore “void ab initio ”

  3. 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."

  4. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 710 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

  5. Local Union No. 189, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen v. Jewel Tea Co.

    381 U.S. 676 (1965)   Cited 242 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a marketing hours limitation contained in a multiemployer contract exempt from antitrust liability because its purpose was to protect the wages, hours, and working conditions of the union's members

  6. 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

  7. Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.

    351 U.S. 149 (1956)   Cited 223 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Pan American Grain Co., Inc.

    432 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2005)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that the court did not "understand the [NLRB's] rationale" and that while the Board's "result may or may not be sound, . . . until we understand its basis, we cannot effectively review it"

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mike O'Connor Chevrolet-Buick-GMC Co.

    512 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1975)   Cited 16 times

    No. 74-1645. Submitted February 13, 1975. Decided March 18, 1975. Charles A. Shaw, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Charles Kelso, Atlanta, Ga., for respondents. Appeal from the National Labor Relations Board. Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, and WANGELIN and NANGLE, District Judges. H. KENNETH WANGELIN and JOHN F. NANGLE, District Judges, Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation. HEANEY, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Universal Camera

    179 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1950)   Cited 24 times

    No. 54, Docket 21395. Argued December 6, 1949. Decided January 10, 1950. A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ruth Weyand, Asst. Gen. Counsel, William J. Avrutis, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman Hays, New York City, Frederick R. Livingston, New York City, for respondent. On petition of the National Labor Relations Board for an order, "enforcing" an order of the Board to "cease