§

PartyLite Worldwide, Inc.

344 N.L.R.B. 1342 (N.L.R.B. 2005)
PartyLite Worldwide, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wyman-Gordon Co.

    394 U.S. 759 (1969)   Cited 809 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding invalid a legislative rule developed in agency adjudication

  2. Solitron Devices v. Island Territory of Curacao

    416 U.S. 986 (1974)   Cited 130 times
    Granting enforcement

  3. Southwire Co. v. N.L.R.B

    820 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that absence of evidence that employer discharged any other employee for similar violation supported finding of pretext

  4. Kux Manufacturing Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    890 F.2d 804 (6th Cir. 1989)   Cited 20 times
    Finding conduct of members of in-plant organizing committee not attributable to union

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Hood Furniture Mfg. Co.

    941 F.2d 325 (5th Cir. 1991)   Cited 13 times
    Affirming Board's finding that third-party conduct did not justify setting aside election results even when terminated employees told former coworkers waiting in line to vote that they "kn[e]w damn well the way" they were "supposed to vote"

  6. Harlan #4 Coal Company v. N.L.R.B

    490 F.2d 117 (6th Cir. 1974)   Cited 27 times

    No. 72-1997. Argued June 9, 1973. Decided January 10, 1974. John E. Jenkins, Jr., Jenkins, Schaub Fenstermaker, Huntington, W. Va., on brief for petitioner. Fredric Sagan, N.L.R.B. for respondent; Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before WEICK, EDWARDS and McCREE, Circuit Judges. McCREE

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Porta Systems Corp.

    625 F.2d 399 (2d Cir. 1980)   Cited 8 times
    Challenging the "result-oriented" method of determining supervisory status

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Monroe Auto Equipment Co.

    470 F.2d 1329 (5th Cir. 1973)   Cited 14 times
    Refusing to presume that the unlawful activity had an impact on or interference with the employees' freedom of choice where the record showed that the effect of the conduct was limited to specific employees, each of whom testified that he had voted his conscience and had ignored the unlawful conduct