§

Puritan-Bennett Corp.

25-CA-028562 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 29, 2003)
Puritan-Bennett Corp.

10 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. 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

  3. Drivers Union v. Meadowmoor Co.

    312 U.S. 287 (1941)   Cited 382 times
    Holding an injunction banning picketing was "justified only by the violence that induced it and only so long as it counteracts a continuing intimidation"

  4. 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

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Caval Tool Division, Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp.

    262 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the Board's holding that an employee engaged in concerted activity when he made statements about the company's new break policy at an employee meeting called by the employer to address the policy

  6. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 27 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

  7. Mushroom Transportation Company v. N.L.R.B

    330 F.2d 683 (3d Cir. 1964)   Cited 48 times
    In Mushroom Transportation Co. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 683, 685 (3d Cir. 1964), we held that to qualify as concerted activity "it must appear at the very least that [the conduct] was engaged in with the object of initiating or inducing or preparing for group action or that it had some relation to group action in the interest of the employees."

  8. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    407 F.2d 1357 (4th Cir. 1969)   Cited 38 times
    Noting that, while timing is a factor, "the thrust of Exchange Parts is the condemnation of granting such benefits with the purpose of affecting the outcome of an election"

  9. Rockwell Intern. Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    814 F.2d 1530 (11th Cir. 1987)   Cited 9 times
    Upholding the Board's conclusion that an employee engaged in concerted activity when she objected to the employer's noise lecture during an employee meeting arranged to discuss the issue

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Illinois Tool Works

    153 F.2d 811 (7th Cir. 1946)   Cited 47 times
    Noting that the test for violations of sec. 8, now codified as sec. 8, of the NLRA is whether "the employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act," and that actual or successful coercion need not be shown in order for the Board to find a violation