§

University Moving & Storage Co.

07-CA-047352 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 29, 2005)
University Moving & Storage Co.

7 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. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

    388 U.S. 26 (1967)   Cited 323 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

  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. Local 702, I.B.E.W. v. N.L.R.B

    215 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 17 times

    Nos. 99-1137, 99-1139 Argued January 19, 2000 Decided May 9, 2000 On Petitions for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Marilyn S. Teitelbaum argued the cause for the petitioners in Nos. 99-1137 and 99-1139. Stacey A. Meyers was on brief for Local 702, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, the petitioner in No. 99-1137. Cary Hammond and Greg A. Campbell were on brief for petitioner International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 148, AFL-CIO in No. 99-1139

  5. Ross Stores, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    235 F.3d 669 (D.C. Cir. 2001)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that when the Board found that there was "no sufficient objective basis" for finding that employees viewed a statement as a threat, § 158(c) "plainly bars the Board not only from finding the speech was an unfair labor practice ... but also from using it as ‘evidence of an unfair labor practice.’ "

  6. Leach Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    54 F.3d 802 (D.C. Cir. 1995)   Cited 4 times

    No. 93-1707. Argued March 24, 1995. Decided May 12, 1995. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. William H. Emer, Los Angeles, CA, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Kelly F. Watson, Los Angeles, CA. Robert J. Englehart, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, DC, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Linda R. Sher, Acting Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General

  7. Vesuvius Crucible Co. v. N.L.R.B

    668 F.2d 162 (3d Cir. 1981)   Cited 10 times
    In Vesuvius, the employer, interpreting a collective bargaining agreement, refused to pay allegedly accrued vacation benefits to any employee, striking or nonstriking.