§

MIDWEST TERMINALS OF TOLEDO INTERNATIONAL INC.

365 NLRB No. 134 (N.L.R.B. 2017)
MIDWEST TERMINALS OF TOLEDO INTERNATIONAL INC.

24 Cited authorities

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

    573 U.S. 513 (2014)   Cited 280 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 ”

  2. 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."

  3. Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board

    379 U.S. 203 (1964)   Cited 734 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

  4. 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"

  5. H. K. Porter Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    397 U.S. 99 (1970)   Cited 222 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the NLRB is "without power to compel a company or a union to agree to any substantive contractual provision of a collective-bargaining agreement."

  6. 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

  7. Uforma/Shelby Business Forms, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    111 F.3d 1284 (6th Cir. 1997)   Cited 96 times
    Holding that "Rule 408 does not exclude evidence of alleged threats to retaliate for protected activity when the statements occurred during negotiations focused on the protected activity and the evidence serves to prove liability either for making, or later acting upon, the threats" because the evidence was not introduced in order to prove the validity of the grievance which served as the subject of the negotiations

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Joy Recovery Tech

    134 F.3d 1307 (7th Cir. 1998)   Cited 28 times
    Concluding that "[i]n this case, timing is everything," where "[t]he closing of the department comes on the heels of the union's organizational activity," including filing a petition for a representation election

  9. 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

  10. Spurlino Materials, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    645 F.3d 870 (7th Cir. 2011)   Cited 10 times
    Establishing new employee evaluation system was mandatory subject of bargaining