§

Weco Cleaning Specialists

308 N.L.R.B. 310 (N.L.R.B. 1992)
Weco Cleaning Specialists

9 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. Burns International Security Services, Inc.

    406 U.S. 272 (1972)   Cited 478 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement

  3. Howard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Local Joint Exec. Bd., Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l Union, AFL-CIO

    417 U.S. 249 (1974)   Cited 366 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding under NLRA that purchaser of hotel assets was not required to arbitrate with union about its decision not to hire all of seller’s employees

  4. 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

  5. Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966)   Cited 56 times
    Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination

  6. N.L.R.B. v. United Sanitation Service

    737 F.2d 936 (11th Cir. 1984)   Cited 22 times
    Reversing ALJ's decision to admit dead witness's self-serving affidavit because no "clear basis of trustworthiness" found

  7. Holo-Krome Co. v. N.L.R.B

    947 F.2d 588 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 3 times

    Nos. 163, 322, Dockets 91-4061, 91-4085. Argued September 11, 1991. Decided October 15, 1991. Opinion on Denial of Rehearing Filed January 17, 1992. Burton Kainen, Hartford, Conn. (Diana Garfield, Siegel, O'Connor, Schiff, Zangari Kainen, P.C., on the brief), for petitioner-cross-respondent. Marilyn O'Rourke, Washington, D.C. (Jerry M. Hunter, Gen. Counsel, D. Randall Frye, Acting Deputy Gen. Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, and William R. Stewart, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel

  8. Central Freight Lines, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    653 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 10 times
    In Central Freight Lines v. NLRB, 653 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981), the court considered the admissibility of a similar affidavit in a Board proceeding, and concluded that the requirements of Rule 804(b)(5) had not been satisfied.

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second