11 Cited authorities
Vaca v. Sipes
386 U.S. 171 (1967) Cited 4,209 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that, under the LMRA, an "individual employee has absolute right to have his grievance taken to arbitration regardless of the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 652 times 11 Legal AnalysesHolding 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."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America
391 U.S. 418 (1968) Cited 215 timesHolding that union could not expel member because he filed unfair labor practice charge against it without first exhausting internal remedies as provided in union constitution
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 AnalysesHolding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
Jackson Hosp. Corp. v. N.L.R.B
647 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011) Cited 6 timesExplaining that “[l]ong ago” the NLRB “clarified” that an employee has no right to bring a witness to a meeting, the “sole purpose” of which is to deliver a predetermined warning
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Adco Electric Inc.
6 F.3d 1110 (5th Cir. 1993) Cited 20 timesHolding that employee "recommend[ing] someone for hire and [bringing] problems with apprentice employees to the attention of [his superior] is nothing more than what [the employer] would expect from experienced employees"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 46
149 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 6 timesNo. 97-4021. Argued September 25, 1997. Decided June 26, 1998. On March 22, 1996, the National Labor Relations Board entered a remedial order after finding that Local 46, Metallic Lathers Union and Reinforcing Iron Workers of New York and Vicinity, had committed certain unfair labor practices in violation of sections 8(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2). The Board petitions for a decree enforcing that order. Because the Board's finding of
Boilermakers Local No. 374 v. N.L.R.B
852 F.2d 1353 (D.C. Cir. 1988) Cited 13 timesIn Boilermakers, 852 F.2d at 1353, and later in Plumbers Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 32 v. NLRB, 50 F.3d 29, 34 (D.C. Cir. 1995), this court set forth the parameters of the heightened duty standard in hiring hall cases.
N.L.R.B. v. Limestone Apparel Corp.
705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1982) Cited 3 timesNo. 81-1693. October 29, 1982. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Jacob Oliner, Oliner Oliner, New York City, for respondent. Petition to Enforce an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before LIVELY, KRUPANSKY and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges. ORDER This cause comes before the Court upon the motion of the intervenor, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, for an order enforcing the order of the National Labor Relations Board in Limestone
Section 158 - Unfair labor practices
29 U.S.C. § 158 Cited 10,316 times 84 Legal AnalysesGranting employees a wage increase without bargaining with Local 355
Section 160 - Prevention of unfair labor practices
29 U.S.C. § 160 Cited 7,059 times 23 Legal AnalysesFinding that the procedures for unfair labor practice cases mandated by R.C. 4117.12 and 4117.13 are substantively identical to those established in NLRA to govern unfair labor practice cases before NLRB