§

Michigan Bell Telephone Company

07-CA-161545 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 21, 2018)
Michigan Bell Telephone Company

15 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. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 712 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"

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

    385 U.S. 432 (1967)   Cited 265 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving "discovery-type standard"

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. King Soopers, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    859 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2017)   Cited 6 times

    No. 16-1316 C/w 16-1367 06-09-2017 KING SOOPERS, INC., Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Raymond M. Deeny, Colorado Springs, CO, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Jonathon M. Watson, Denver, CO. Amy H. Ginn, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Richard F. Griffin, Jr., General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Robert

  7. Asarco, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    86 F.3d 1401 (5th Cir. 1996)   Cited 22 times
    Finding of antiunion animus necessary to finding of section 8 violation

  8. Nursing v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    164 F.3d 867 (4th Cir. 1999)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that an employer could only distribute its proposal to union employees when the proposal was "properly before" the union

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. BASF Wyandotte Corp.

    798 F.2d 849 (5th Cir. 1986)   Cited 25 times
    Finding that a collective bargaining agreement granting employees certain benefits under the plan while they were on "union leaves" of absence from the employer fell within the § 186(c) exception

  10. Palace Sports Entm't, Inc. v. NLRB

    411 F.3d 212 (D.C. Cir. 2005)   Cited 6 times

    No. 04-1261, 04-1276. Argued March 18, 2005. Decided May 31, 2005. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Robert M. Vercruysse argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Gary S. Fealk. David A. Fleischer, Senior Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Rosenfeld, General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Assistant General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong