§

Shamrock Foods Company

369 N.L.R.B. 5 (N.L.R.B. 2020)
Shamrock Foods Company

30 Cited authorities

  1. Sure-Tan, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    467 U.S. 883 (1984)   Cited 416 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NLRB could order reinstatement with back pay as a remedy for constructive discharge

  2. Holly Farms Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    517 U.S. 392 (1996)   Cited 136 times
    Holding that where statute's meaning is obvious, courts and Board must defer to Congress's unambiguous intent, but where ambiguity exists, courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute

  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 357 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  6. Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    321 U.S. 678 (1944)   Cited 269 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that offers of benefits to union supporters that induce them to leave the union violate § 8

  7. Cassino v. Reichhold Chems., Inc.

    817 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 212 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "expert testimony is not required to prove what the plaintiff would receive in future earnings and raises"

  8. Stockman v. Oakcrest

    480 F.3d 791 (6th Cir. 2007)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that evidence of a compromise offer wasn't admissible under Rule 408(b) to show a failure to mitigate damages because such a purpose "goes to the amount of the claim" (cleaned up)

  9. Wallace Corp. v. Labor Board

    323 U.S. 248 (1944)   Cited 162 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that corporation committed unfair labor practice

  10. Uforma/Shelby Business Forms, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    111 F.3d 1284 (6th Cir. 1997)   Cited 93 times
    Holding that "Rule 408 does not exclude evidence of alleged threats to retaliate for protected activity when the statements occurred during negotiations focused on the protected activity and the evidence serves to prove liability either for making, or later acting upon, the threats" because the evidence was not introduced in order to prove the validity of the grievance which served as the subject of the negotiations

  11. Rule 408 - Compromise Offers and Negotiations

    Fed. R. Evid. 408   Cited 4,401 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that premature deliberations constituted an internal jury influence subject to the post-verdict restrictions of Rule 606(b)

  12. Section 1981a - Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment

    42 U.S.C. § 1981a   Cited 4,226 times   55 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "additional remedies under Federal law are needed to deter unlawful harassment and intentional discrimination in the workplace"

  13. Section 12205 - Attorney's fees

    42 U.S.C. § 12205   Cited 1,637 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the court to allow costs to "the prevailing party"