§
RCC Fabricators

10 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. National Labor Rel. B. v. Kentucky R. Comm. C

    532 U.S. 706 (2001)   Cited 181 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit

  3. Interstate Circuit v. U.S.

    306 U.S. 208 (1939)   Cited 514 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding proof of an explicit agreement unnecessary to establish antitrust conspiracy among movie distributors where, "knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it"

  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. Multi-Ad Services, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    255 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 34 times
    Affirming Board's finding of coercive interrogation where an employee was asked "why he would want to bring a union into the company"

  6. Bourne v. N.L.R.B

    332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964)   Cited 93 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

  7. Hotel Emp. Restaurant Emp. Un. v. N.L.R.B

    760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 26 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Affirming Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Seawin, Inc.

    248 F.3d 551 (6th Cir. 2001)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that when the objective circumstances do not support a reasonable expectation of recall, equivocal statements suggesting a possibility of recall do not provide an adequate basis for finding a reasonable expectation of recall

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Duquesne Electric Mfg. Co.

    518 F.2d 701 (3d Cir. 1975)   Cited 4 times

    No. 74-1989. Argued April 18, 1975. Decided June 13, 1975. As Amended June 30, 1975. Michael Messitte, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Timothy P. O'Reilly, Bridgeville, Pa., for respondent. Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and MARIS and ROSENN, Circuit Judges. OPINION OF THE COURT MARIS, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board petitions this court to enforce its order of June 28, 1974, 212 NLRB No. 8, against the Duquesne Electric and Manufacturing Company (hereinafter designated

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Universal Camera

    179 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1950)   Cited 25 times

    No. 54, Docket 21395. Argued December 6, 1949. Decided January 10, 1950. A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ruth Weyand, Asst. Gen. Counsel, William J. Avrutis, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman Hays, New York City, Frederick R. Livingston, New York City, for respondent. On petition of the National Labor Relations Board for an order, "enforcing" an order of the Board to "cease