VOITH INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.

18 Cited authorities

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 ”
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."
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. Weingarten, Inc.
420 U.S. 251 (1975) Cited 434 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness
Arshal v. U.S.
449 U.S. 1077 (1981) Cited 205 times
Discussing good faith in context of a § 215 violation
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
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
Prill v. N.L.R.B
835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987) Cited 27 times 8 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”
Media General Operations, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
394 F.3d 207 (4th Cir. 2005) Cited 7 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employee who called his employer a "racist," "b_____d," and "red-neck son-of-a-b___h" fell outside of § 7 because he committed acts "of such a serious character as to render [him] unfit for further service"
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. N.L.R.B
318 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2003) Cited 7 times
Noting that demonstration of economic exigency justifies prompt implementation of a company's proposals

VOITH INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.

18 Cited authorities

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 ”

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."

Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

Holding that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness

Discussing good faith in context of a § 215 violation

Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

Holding that an employee who called his employer a "racist," "b_____d," and "red-neck son-of-a-b___h" fell outside of § 7 because he committed acts "of such a serious character as to render [him] unfit for further service"

Noting that demonstration of economic exigency justifies prompt implementation of a company's proposals

Holding that an employee who called his employer a "racist," "b___d," and "red-neck son-of-a-b_h" fell outside of § 7 because he committed acts "of such a serious character as to render [him] unfit for further service"