§
Rock-Tenn Co.

7 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. 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

  3. Brooks v. Labor Board

    348 U.S. 96 (1954)   Cited 300 times
    Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board

  4. Labor Board v. Burnup Sims

    379 U.S. 21 (1964)   Cited 106 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Laverdiere's Enterprises

    933 F.2d 1045 (1st Cir. 1991)   Cited 15 times
    Discussing appropriateness of bargaining order in light of seriousness of unfair labor practices

  6. United Supermarkets, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    862 F.2d 549 (5th Cir. 1989)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 88-4027. January 3, 1989. Don Graf, Dan G. Young, McCleskey, Harriger, Brazill Graf, Lubbock, Tex., for petitioner cross-respondent. Wm. M. Bernstein, Deputy Assoc. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Aileen A. Armstrong, Barbara A. Atkin, Washington, D.C., Michael Dunn, Regional Director, NLRB, Edward B. Valverde, Fort Worth, Tex., for NLRB. Petition for Review and Cross Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before WILLIAMS and GARWOOD, Circuit Judges, and POLOZOLA,

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Wallkill Valley General Hosp

    866 F.2d 632 (3d Cir. 1989)   Cited 13 times
    Noting that the Board has “observed that there is a clear distinction between union membership and majority support for collective bargaining representatives”