§

Unique Personnel Consultants, Inc.

364 NLRB No. 112 (N.L.R.B. 2016)
Unique Personnel Consultants, Inc.

18 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. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

    465 U.S. 822 (1984)   Cited 206 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection

  3. 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

  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. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 80 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

  7. 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.

  8. Cadbury Beverages v. N.L.R.B

    160 F.3d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1998)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that it was “not incumbent on the general counsel to prove, nor on the Board to find, that the company's asserted nondiscriminatory reason of insubordination was pretextual ... although such a showing would have served as a conclusive rejection of [the company's] affirmative defense”

  9. Citizens Inv. Servs. Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    430 F.3d 1195 (D.C. Cir. 2005)   Cited 12 times
    Rejecting an employer's proffered “affirmative defenses” for a disciplinary decision, in part, because “there was substantial evidence” that they were “pretextual”

  10. Allegheny Ludlum Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    104 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Allegheny Ludlum, however, we upheld an unfair labor practice violation where the employer warned it would "no longer find ways" to avoid laying off employees if they joined a union.