§

SRC Painting, LLC

30-CA-016577 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 14, 2005)
SRC Painting, LLC

10 Cited authorities

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

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 657 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. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,036 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  3. Howard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Local Joint Exec. Bd., Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l Union, AFL-CIO

    417 U.S. 249 (1974)   Cited 367 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding under NLRA that purchaser of hotel assets was not required to arbitrate with union about its decision not to hire all of seller’s employees

  4. 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"

  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. Southport Pet., Co. v. N.L.R.B

    315 U.S. 100 (1942)   Cited 187 times
    Ruling that dissolution of company and transfer of assets did not prevent enforcement of a Board order

  7. Stardyne, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    41 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 1994)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that the Board's alter ego analysis involved a policy choice that is consistent with the Act

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Hospital San Rafael, Inc.

    42 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 1994)   Cited 39 times
    Describing the labor law alter ego doctrine, whereby an employer will be treated interchangeably with its predecessor for purposes of applying labor laws, typically when the new employer is “created by the owners of the first for the purpose of evading labor law responsibilities”

  9. Fugazy Continental Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    725 F.2d 1416 (D.C. Cir. 1984)   Cited 24 times
    Affirming alter ego finding where only portion of company's operations were shut and transferred to a new, "sham" company established to perform the same work

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second