Novelis Corporation

26 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."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,035 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
Linn v. Plant Guard Workers
383 U.S. 53 (1966) Cited 732 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding as preempted all defamation actions in labor disputes except those published with actual malice
Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
437 U.S. 556 (1978) Cited 196 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a newsletter that "urg[ed] employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state 'right-to-work' statute into a revised state constitution," "criticiz[ed] a Presidential veto of an increase in the federal minimum wage and urg[ed] employees to register to vote" was protected concerted activity
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.”
Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith
487 U.S. 1205 (1988) Cited 105 times 6 Legal Analyses
Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption
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
Labor Board v. Electrical Workers
346 U.S. 464 (1953) Cited 125 times 41 Legal Analyses
Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute
Multi-Ad Services, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
255 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2001) Cited 33 times
Affirming Board's finding of coercive interrogation where an employee was asked "why he would want to bring a union into the company"
N.L.R.B. v. Consolidated Bus Transit
577 F.3d 467 (2d Cir. 2009) Cited 16 times
Interpreting similar language in 29 C.F.R. § 101.10 as meaning "that the Board's procedures are to be controlled by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as far as practicable" (cleaned up)
Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 901 Cited 5,322 times 53 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,091 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

Novelis Corporation

26 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 a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

Holding as preempted all defamation actions in labor disputes except those published with actual malice

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.”

Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

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

Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute

Affirming Board's finding of coercive interrogation where an employee was asked "why he would want to bring a union into the company"

Interpreting similar language in 29 C.F.R. § 101.10 as meaning "that the Board's procedures are to be controlled by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as far as practicable" (cleaned up)

Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"