§

Yellow Transportation, Inc.

343 N.L.R.B. 43 (N.L.R.B. 2004)
Yellow Transportation, Inc.

10 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. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

    465 U.S. 822 (1984)   Cited 206 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection

  3. Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.

    369 U.S. 404 (1962)   Cited 298 times
    Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

  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. Dayton Typographic Service, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    778 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1985)   Cited 25 times
    Finding the employer's "lack of work" defense unconvincing where the employer hired two new employees to do part-time work in the same department as the discharged employee

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Rain-Ware, Inc.

    732 F.2d 1349 (7th Cir. 1984)   Cited 20 times
    Concluding that "[t]he timing of the layoffs and warehouse closing provides the strongest support for connecting anti-union sentiment with the layoffs," where the layoffs and warehouse closing closely followed a demand for union recognition

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Windsor Industries, Inc.

    730 F.2d 860 (2d Cir. 1984)   Cited 13 times

    No. 355, Docket 83-4135. Argued December 15, 1983. Decided March 13, 1984. Joseph F. Frankl, Washington, D.C. (William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, and Peter Winkler, Atty., Washington, D.C.) for petitioner. Clifford P. Chaiet, Jericho, N.Y. (Pearl Chaiet, P.C., Jericho, N.Y.), for respondent. Petition from the National Labor Relations Board. Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge

  9. N.L.R.B. v. Limestone Apparel Corp.

    705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1982)   Cited 3 times

    No. 81-1693. October 29, 1982. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Jacob Oliner, Oliner Oliner, New York City, for respondent. Petition to Enforce an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before LIVELY, KRUPANSKY and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges. ORDER This cause comes before the Court upon the motion of the intervenor, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, for an order enforcing the order of the National Labor Relations Board in Limestone

  10. Tompkins v. Nash

    326 F.2d 466 (8th Cir. 1964)

    Misc. No. 230. January 23, 1964. Gordon H. Tompkins, pro se. No appearance for appellee. Before JOHNSEN, Chief Judge, and MATTHES, Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM. Petitioner, an inmate of the Missouri State Penitentiary, makes application to have a certificate of probable cause issued by a judge of this Court to enable him to take an appeal from the District Court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The District Court found that there had been an exhaustion of state remedies but denied