§

Wilmington Fabricators

332 N.L.R.B. 57 (N.L.R.B. 2000)
Wilmington Fabricators

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. 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

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co.

    360 U.S. 301 (1959)   Cited 106 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an untimely allegation of an unlawful unilateral wage increase was sufficiently related to a timely refusal-to-bargain charge, because the wage increase "largely influenced" the Board's finding that an unlawful refusal to bargain had occurred

  4. Town & Country Electric, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    106 F.3d 816 (8th Cir. 1997)   Cited 21 times
    Noting the great deference we afford the Board's affirmation of an ALJ's findings

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Oklahoma Fixture Co.

    79 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 1996)   Cited 16 times

    No. 95-9509. Filed March 28, 1996. Joseph J. Jablonski Jr., Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (Frederick L. Feinstein, General Counsel, Linda R. Sher, Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Charles Donnelly, Supervisory Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., with him on the brief), for Petitioner. Stephen L. Andrew (D. Kevin Ikenberry with him on the brief), of Stephen L. Andrew Associates, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for

  6. Ballou Brick Co. v. N.L.R.B

    798 F.2d 339 (8th Cir. 1986)   Cited 14 times
    Modifying statement sufficient to render an otherwise invalid statement valid was made two weeks before the start of the union campaign, was announced in affirmative terms, and there was "no evidence that the employees did not know of the rule change"

  7. York Products, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    881 F.2d 542 (8th Cir. 1989)   Cited 11 times
    Inferring motive from pretextual explanations when the employer threatened to close the facility if employees unionized

  8. McGraw-Edison Company v. N.L.R.B

    419 F.2d 67 (8th Cir. 1969)   Cited 33 times

    No. 19429. December 4, 1969. Paul S. Kuelthau, of Moller, Talent Kuelthau, St. Louis, for petitioner and filed brief and reply brief. John D. Burgoyne, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, N.L.R.B., and Robertamarie Kiley, Atty., N.L.R.B., were on the brief with Mr. Burgoyne. Charles A. Werner, St. Louis, Mo., for intervenor; Gibson Langsdale, Kansas

  9. Section 6621 - Determination of rate of interest

    26 U.S.C. § 6621   Cited 1,874 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Applying a higher interest rate to past liabilities resulting from tax-motivated transactions