§

Sacramento Recycling & Transfer Station

345 N.L.R.B. 564 (N.L.R.B. 2005)
Sacramento Recycling & Transfer Station

13 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 656 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. Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.

    369 U.S. 404 (1962)   Cited 298 times
    Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

  4. Labor Board v. Parts Co.

    375 U.S. 405 (1964)   Cited 213 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

  5. 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

  6. Foltz v. U. S. News World Report

    490 U.S. 1108 (1989)   Cited 36 times
    Timing of discharge made employer motivation "stunningly obvious"

  7. Epilepsy Foundation of N.E. Ohio v. N.L.R.B

    268 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2001)   Cited 20 times   4 Legal Analyses

    No. 00-1332. Argued October 2, 2001. Decided November 2, 2001. Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Anita Barondes argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Peter Chatilovicz, Ronald A. Lindsay, and Steven M. Moss. Maurice Baskin, Stephen A. Bokat, Robin S. Conrad, Heather L. MacDougall, Daniel V. Yager, Harold P. Coxson Jr., Burton J. Fishman, Robert J. Verdisco, Jan S. Amundson, and Quentin Riegel were on

  8. N.L.R.B. v. S.E. Nichols, Inc.

    862 F.2d 952 (2d Cir. 1988)   Cited 30 times
    Finding that violations at various locations managed by the same district supervisor justified an order covering all locations managed by that district supervisor

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Health Care Logistics, Inc.

    784 F.2d 232 (6th Cir. 1986)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that employer committed unfair labor practice by discharging two employees engaged in protected union activity but did not engage in unfair employment practice when it discharged similarly active employee who performed poorly during his probationary period

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Joseph Antell, Inc.

    358 F.2d 880 (1st Cir. 1966)   Cited 26 times
    In Antell, the court stated that the smallness of a plant, or a staff, may be material as bearing on the knowledge on the part of the employer of an employee's union activities, but only to the extent that it may be shown to have made it likely that the employer observed, or otherwise learned about the activity in question.