§

National Semiconductor Corp.

272 N.L.R.B. 973 (N.L.R.B. 1984)
National Semiconductor Corp.

14 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. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. Weingarten, Inc.

    420 U.S. 251 (1975)   Cited 434 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness

  3. Radio Officers v. Labor Board

    347 U.S. 17 (1954)   Cited 470 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

  4. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board

    324 U.S. 793 (1945)   Cited 495 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

  5. 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

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hendricks County Rural Electric Membership Corp.

    454 U.S. 170 (1981)   Cited 79 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Hendricks, the Supreme Court approved the Board's "labor-nexus" rule as determinative of whether or not a worker is to be deemed a confidential employee.

  7. Jas. H. Matthews Co. v. N.L.R.B

    354 F.2d 432 (8th Cir. 1966)   Cited 54 times
    In James H. Matthews Co., supra, the employee in question signed an authorization card. Later the union received a letter, postmarked 11 days after the effective date for determining majority status of the union, requesting return of the employee's authorization card. Allegedly, the letter was neither written, dated, nor addressed by the employee and was originally left with an undisclosed person.

  8. Hendricks County Rural Elec., Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    627 F.2d 766 (7th Cir. 1980)   Cited 22 times

    No. 80-1283. Argued June 3, 1980. July 21, 1980. Warren D. Krebs, Parr, Richey, Obremskey Morton, Lebanon, Ind., for petitioner. Richard Michael Fischl, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before SPRECHER and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, Senior District Judge. Senior District Judge William J. Campbell of the Northern District of Illinois is sitting by designation SPRECHER, Circuit Judge. This review causes us to examine

  9. N.L.R.B. v. M B Headwear Co.

    349 F.2d 170 (4th Cir. 1965)   Cited 22 times
    Stating that a "substantial evidence" challenge presented a "familiar question"

  10. Hendricks Cty. Rural Elec., Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    603 F.2d 25 (7th Cir. 1979)   Cited 5 times

    No. 78-2127. Argued April 13, 1979. Decided July 26, 1979. Warren D. Krebs, Lebanon, for petitioner. Richard Michael Fischl, NLRB, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Appeal from the National Labor Relations Board. Before CUMMINGS, SPRECHER, Circuit Judges, and BONSAL, Senior District Judge. The Honorable Dudley B. Bonsal, Senior District Judge of the Southern District of New York is sitting by designation. SPRECHER, Circuit Judge. The employer, Hendricks County Rural Electric Membership Corporation