RIVER FALLS HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a KINNIC HEALTH AND REHAB

9 Cited authorities

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,693 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
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."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. Weingarten, Inc.
420 U.S. 251 (1975) Cited 434 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness
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
SCA Tissue North America LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
371 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2004) Cited 34 times
Finding employer terminated employee based on antiunion animus in part because of employer's comment about employee's "attitude"
Consolidated Diesel Co. v. N.L.R.B
263 F.3d 345 (4th Cir. 2001) Cited 15 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that "[t]here would be nothing left of [the Act's] rights if every time employees exercised them in a way that was somehow offensive to someone," they were subject to the threat of discipline
N.L.R.B. v. Hi-Tech Cable Corp.
128 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 1997) Cited 6 times
Holding that the temporal proximity between the unfair labor practices and the withdrawal of recognition allows for a conclusion that employees' display of disaffection for their union might have been induced by the company's unlawful actions
Mahon v. N.L.R.B
808 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1987) Cited 9 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting that "it has long been recognized that a union may waive a member's statutorily protected rights" (citing Metro. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693, 705, 103 S.Ct. 1467, 75 L.Ed.2d 387 (1983))
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Universal Camera
179 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1950) Cited 24 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

RIVER FALLS HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a KINNIC HEALTH AND REHAB

9 Cited authorities

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

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 that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness

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

Finding employer terminated employee based on antiunion animus in part because of employer's comment about employee's "attitude"

Recognizing that "[t]here would be nothing left of [the Act's] rights if every time employees exercised them in a way that was somehow offensive to someone," they were subject to the threat of discipline

Holding that the temporal proximity between the unfair labor practices and the withdrawal of recognition allows for a conclusion that employees' display of disaffection for their union might have been induced by the company's unlawful actions

Noting that "it has long been recognized that a union may waive a member's statutorily protected rights" (citing Metro. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693, 705, 103 S.Ct. 1467, 75 L.Ed.2d 387 (1983))