§

Sam���s Club

342 N.L.R.B. 620 (N.L.R.B. 2004)
Sam���s Club

10 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. Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    437 U.S. 556 (1978)   Cited 196 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a newsletter that "urg[ed] employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state 'right-to-work' statute into a revised state constitution," "criticiz[ed] a Presidential veto of an increase in the federal minimum wage and urg[ed] employees to register to vote" was protected concerted activity

  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. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

    487 U.S. 1205 (1988)   Cited 105 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

  5. 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

  6. FPC Holdings, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    64 F.3d 935 (4th Cir. 1995)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that company's knowledge of employee's union involvement was properly inferred from the fact that the employees discussed a planned union meeting openly in the company's warehouse and over the company's CB radio at a time when the company was closely monitoring one of the employee's behavior

  7. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 27 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

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

    95 F.3d 681 (8th Cir. 1996)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that a company policy violated the Act by prohibiting employees from discussing employment conditions with the company's clients.

  9. Ishikawa Gasket America, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    354 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    No. 02-1167/1310. Argued: October 21, 2003. Decided and Filed: January 7, 2004. ON PETITION FOR REVIEW AND CROSS-APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. No. 8-CA-31292. Maurice G. Jenkins (argued and briefed), Paul R. Bernard (abriefed), Jennifer K. Nowaczok (briefed), Dickinson, Wright, PLLC, Detroit, MI, for Petitioner. David Seid (argued and briefed), National Labor Relations Board, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, Aileen A. Armstrong (briefed)

  10. Tyler Business Services, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    680 F.2d 338 (4th Cir. 1982)   Cited 1 times

    No. 81-1847. Argued February 3, 1982. Decided June 8, 1982. Michael F. Marino, Washington, D.C. (Elizabeth L. Lewis, Boothe, Prichard Dudley, Alexandria, Va., Maurice Baskin, Venable, Baetjer, Howard Civiletti, Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioner. Susan L. Williams, 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, Washington, D.C., on brief), for respondent