Whitewood Oriental Maintenance Co., World Service Co., Lucky Service Co.

35 Cited authorities

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."
Golden State Bottling Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
414 U.S. 168 (1973) Cited 501 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that Rule 65(d) allows enforcement of orders against successors of enjoined parties
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.
406 U.S. 272 (1972) Cited 480 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement
Boire v. Greyhound Corp.
376 U.S. 473 (1964) Cited 429 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding status of employer as independent contractor is immaterial because focus of joint employment inquiry is on employees, not employers
Brooks v. Labor Board
348 U.S. 96 (1954) Cited 301 times
Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board
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
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc.
691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982) Cited 342 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that joint employer situation exists only when "two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees . . . [where] they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment"
Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board
321 U.S. 702 (1944) Cited 252 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.
Clinton's Ditch Co-op. Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
778 F.2d 132 (2d Cir. 1985) Cited 142 times
Finding the fact that a company complains to a contractor about problems that the company's customers had with the contractor's drivers, and that the company "expected appropriate action to be taken" against the contractor's driver did not demonstrate joint employment
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Action Automotive, Inc.
469 U.S. 490 (1985) Cited 44 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding Board rule excluding from bargaining unit employees who are relatives of management
Section 6621 - Determination of rate of interest
26 U.S.C. § 6621 Cited 1,894 times 23 Legal Analyses
Applying a higher interest rate to past liabilities resulting from tax-motivated transactions

Whitewood Oriental Maintenance Co., World Service Co., Lucky Service Co.

35 Cited authorities

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 Rule 65(d) allows enforcement of orders against successors of enjoined parties

Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement

Finding status of employer as independent contractor is immaterial because focus of joint employment inquiry is on employees, not employers

Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board

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

Holding that joint employer situation exists only when "two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees . . . [where] they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment"

Recognizing the legitimacy of the Board's view that the unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with employees' chosen representative disrupts employee morale, deters organizational activities, and discourages membership in unions.

Finding the fact that a company complains to a contractor about problems that the company's customers had with the contractor's drivers, and that the company "expected appropriate action to be taken" against the contractor's driver did not demonstrate joint employment

Upholding Board rule excluding from bargaining unit employees who are relatives of management

Applying a higher interest rate to past liabilities resulting from tax-motivated transactions