§

Universal Truss, Inc.

31-CA-025477 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 28, 2003)
Universal Truss, Inc.

18 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. Radio Officers v. Labor Board

    347 U.S. 17 (1954)   Cited 471 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

  3. 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

  4. Labor Board v. Fansteel Corp.

    306 U.S. 240 (1939)   Cited 281 times
    In Fansteel, the Board awarded reinstatement with backpay to employees who engaged in a "sit down strike" that led to confrontation with local law enforcement officials.

  5. 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"

  6. Hedstrom Co. v. N.L.R.B

    629 F.2d 305 (3d Cir. 1980)   Cited 43 times
    Affirming the Board's finding that a supervisor's statement was coercive, despite employee testimony suggesting otherwise, because the record supported both interpretations

  7. N.L.R.B. v. W. C. McQuaide, Inc.

    552 F.2d 519 (3d Cir. 1977)   Cited 40 times
    In McQuaide, supra, we stated flatly: "Rather than focus on either the subjective intent of the striker or the perception of the `victim,' we adopt an objective standard to determine whether conduct constitutes a threat sufficiently egregious to justify" the imposition of sanctions by the employer.

  8. NMC Finishing v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    101 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 1996)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding such conduct unprotected in context of striking employees' derision of non-striking employee

  9. Local 542, Int'l Un. of Oper. E. v. N.L.R.B

    328 F.2d 850 (3d Cir. 1964)   Cited 44 times

    No. 14286. Argued October 10, 1963. Decided March 13, 1964. Abraham E. Freedman, Philadelphia, Pa. (Martin J. Vigderman, Wilfred F. Lorry, Freedman, Landy Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for petitioner. Leo Maguire, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Melvin Pollack, Atty., N.L.R.B., on the brief), for respondent. Earle K. Shawe, Baltimore, Md. (Sidney J. Barban, Baltimore,

  10. Local 833, Uaw-Afl-Cio, Etc. v. N.L.R.B

    300 F.2d 699 (D.C. Cir. 1962)   Cited 40 times

    Nos. 15961, 16031, 16182. Argued September 11, 1961. Decided January 26, 1962. Certiorari Denied June 4, 1962. See 82 S.Ct. 1258. Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D.C., and Mr. Louis H. Pollak, New Haven, Conn., of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. John Silard, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for Local 833, UAW-AFL-CIO, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, petitioner

  11. Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 802   Cited 4,089 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay