§

Salisbury Hotel, Inc.

283 N.L.R.B. 685 (N.L.R.B. 1987)
Salisbury Hotel, Inc.

15 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. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

    465 U.S. 822 (1984)   Cited 206 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection

  3. 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

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.

    360 U.S. 301 (1959)   Cited 106 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred

  5. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 80 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

  6. Dayton Typographic Service, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    778 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1985)   Cited 25 times
    Finding the employer's "lack of work" defense unconvincing where the employer hired two new employees to do part-time work in the same department as the discharged employee

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Guernsey-Muskingum Electric Co-op

    285 F.2d 8 (6th Cir. 1960)   Cited 58 times
    Finding concerted activity because "a reasonable inference can be drawn that the men involved considered that they had a grievance and decided, among themselves, that they would take it up with management"

  8. 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."

  9. Hugh H. Wilson Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    414 F.2d 1345 (3d Cir. 1969)   Cited 37 times
    Finding concerted activity because "[i]n substance, the employees had a gripe. They assembled. They presented their grievance to management. . . ."

  10. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    635 F.2d 304 (4th Cir. 1980)   Cited 18 times

    No. 79-1645. Argued August 21, 1980. Decided December 8, 1980. H. Lane Dennard, Jr., Greenville, N.C. (Jonathan P. Pearson, Ogletree, Deakins, Smoak, Stewart Edwards, Greenville, N.C., on brief), for petitioner. Lafe E. Solomon, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Kenneth B. Hipp, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., on brief),