§

Taylor Motors, Inc.

365 NLRB No. 21 (N.L.R.B. 2017)
Taylor Motors, Inc.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Canning

    573 U.S. 513 (2014)   Cited 274 times   150 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because there was no quorum of validly appointed board members, the NLRB “lacked authority to act,” and the enforcement order was therefore “void ab initio ”

  2. 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

  3. Labor Board v. Burnup Sims

    379 U.S. 21 (1964)   Cited 106 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

  4. Nlrb v. Canning

    12-1281 (U.S. Jun. 24, 2013)   Cited 4 times   3 Legal Analyses

    12-1281 06-24-2013 NLRB v. NOEL CANNING, ET AL. CERTIORARI GRANTED The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the questions presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether the President's recess-appointment power may be exercised when the Senate is convening every three days in pro forma sessions.

  5. Bourne v. N.L.R.B

    332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964)   Cited 93 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

  6. Sutter E. Bay Hosps. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    687 F.3d 424 (D.C. Cir. 2012)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding the Board's finding that a hospital changed solicitation rules in order to “squelch union activity” when it suddenly began to prohibit outside groups from meeting in the cafeteria

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Domsey Trading Corp.

    636 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2011)   Cited 10 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Noting that “the Board enjoys broad discretion in fashioning remedies under the NLRA”

  8. Shamrock Foods Company v. N.L.R.B

    346 F.3d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 2003)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "Wright Line is inapplicable to cases . . . in which the employer has discharged the employee because of alleged misconduct in the course of protected activity"

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. La-Z-Boy Midwest

    390 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2004)   Cited 13 times
    Describing the NLRB's burden-shifting analysis of Wright Line, 251 N.L.R.B. 1083, enforced, 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 989, 102 S.Ct. 1612, 71 L.Ed.2d 848

  10. Rubin Bros. Footwear v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    203 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1953)   Cited 17 times
    In Rubin Bros. Footwear v. National Labor Relations Bd., 203 F.2d 486 (C.C.A. 5th), the Court said: "If anything is settled in labor law and under the act, we think it is that membership in a union does not guarantee the member against a discharge as such. It affords protection against discharge only where it is established that the discharge is because of union activity."