§

New Silver Palace Restaurant

334 N.L.R.B. 290 (N.L.R.B. 2001)
New Silver Palace Restaurant

8 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. Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    482 U.S. 27 (1987)   Cited 372 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the new employer must bargain with the old union, if the new employer is a true successor, and discussing factors

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.

    406 U.S. 272 (1972)   Cited 480 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement

  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. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Action Automotive, Inc.

    469 U.S. 490 (1985)   Cited 44 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding Board rule excluding from bargaining unit employees who are relatives of management

  6. Electromation, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    35 F.3d 1148 (7th Cir. 1994)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding finding of domination in similar situation

  7. Manimark Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    7 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 1993)   Cited 10 times
    In Manimark, the employee was summoned to a meeting about a change to the company's compensation policy that affected only him.

  8. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    877 F.2d 180 (2d Cir. 1989)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that “the Board did not abuse its discretion in failing to set aside [the union's victory in an] election” because “the failure ... did not affect the outcome of the election”