Mid-State Distributing Co., Inc.

12 Cited authorities

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."
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
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
N.L.R.B. v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
717 F.2d 141 (4th Cir. 1983) Cited 90 times
Holding that questioning of employees about number of union cards signed, placing employees in a position of having to admit or deny union support, and participating in anti-union petition were all unfair labor practices
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
Midwest Stock Exchange, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
635 F.2d 1255 (7th Cir. 1980) Cited 31 times
In Midwest Stock Exch., Inc. v. NLRB, 635 F.2d 1255 (7th Cir. 1980), the court found that an employer discriminatorily enforced its no-solicitation rule by strictly enforcing the rule against union activities but permitting "[s]uch drives as the Crusade of Mercy, collection of blood in a bloodmobile... [on the employer's] premises, the selling of Avon products, Tupperware, boat cruise tickets, raffle tickets, Girl Scout cookies, and a number of other items."
N.L.R.B. v. Appletree Chevrolet, Inc.
608 F.2d 988 (4th Cir. 1979) Cited 28 times
In Appletree Chevrolet, the Board's petition for enforcement was not allowed when review of its proceedings made plain that the Board did little more than cite Gissel as the basis for its bargaining order.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ayer Lar Sanitarium
436 F.2d 45 (9th Cir. 1970) Cited 39 times
In NLRB v. Ayer Lar Sanitarium, supra, 436 F.2d at 50, we said that the "test is whether the business reason or the... union activity is the moving cause behind the discharge.
Presbyterian/St. Luke's Medical Center v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
723 F.2d 1468 (10th Cir. 1983) Cited 18 times
No. 81-2107. December 23, 1983. Gina Kaiser and Clifton L. Elliott of Elliott, Kaiser Freeman, Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner. Jerrold Wohlgemuth, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, James D. Donathen, and Allison W. Brown, Jr., Attys., Washington, D.C., on brief), for respondent. Michael Radzilowsky and Lawrence A. Poltrock of DeJong
Hambre Hombre Enterprises, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
581 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1978) Cited 6 times
No. 77-1613. July 12, 1978. Rehearing Denied September 5, 1978. Ralph M. Segura, Walnut Creek, Cal., for petitioner. Paul J. Spielberg (argued), Elliott Moore, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition to Review Final Order of the National Labor Relations Board and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before SNEED and TANG, Circuit Judges, and ORRICK, District Judge. Honorable William H. Orrick, United States District Judge for the Northern District

Mid-State Distributing Co., Inc.

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."

Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

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

Holding that questioning of employees about number of union cards signed, placing employees in a position of having to admit or deny union support, and participating in anti-union petition were all unfair labor practices

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

In Appletree Chevrolet, the Board's petition for enforcement was not allowed when review of its proceedings made plain that the Board did little more than cite Gissel as the basis for its bargaining order.

In NLRB v. Ayer Lar Sanitarium, supra, 436 F.2d at 50, we said that the "test is whether the business reason or the... union activity is the moving cause behind the discharge.