Amglo Kemlite Laboratories

22 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 650 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."
Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board
379 U.S. 203 (1964) Cited 729 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA
City of Santa Clara v. Andrus
439 U.S. 859 (1978) Cited 170 times
Holding unreviewable the Secretary's allocation of power between preference entities and holding that "banking" of power with a private utility for later sale to preference entities was in fact a sale, and thus violated the preference clause because it occurred when a preference entity's power was being withdrawn
Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co.
370 U.S. 9 (1962) Cited 206 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections
N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981) Cited 356 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
Textile Workers v. Darlington Co.
380 U.S. 263 (1965) Cited 168 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer has the absolute right, at least as far as the NLRA is concerned, to terminate his entire business for any reason
Service Emp. Int. v. Nati. Labor Relations
647 F.3d 435 (2d Cir. 2011) Cited 32 times
Docket No. 10–3616–ag. 2011-08-1 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 32BJ, Petitioner,v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. Andrew L. Strom, Office of the General Counsel, SEIU Local 32BJ, New York, NY, for Petitioner.Ronald Meisburg, General Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel (Robert Englehart, Supervisory Attorney, David A. Fleischer, Senior Attorney, on the brief),
SCA Tissue North America LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
371 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2004) Cited 33 times
Finding employer terminated employee based on antiunion animus in part because of employer's comment about employee's "attitude"
Turnbull Cone Baking Co. v. N.L.R.B
778 F.2d 292 (6th Cir. 1985) Cited 51 times
In Turnbull Cone, we unequivocally established that "[c]ircumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient" to prove a section 8(a)(3) transgression.
Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
402 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2005) Cited 21 times
Contrasting lawfully speeding up a long-planned operational change due to union activity, with unlawfully "suddenly decid[ing] to find a way to cut back ... to spite the Union"

Amglo Kemlite Laboratories

22 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 the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

Holding that certain employee conduct crosses the line from protected activity to "indefensible" conduct that loses NLRA protections

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

Holding that an employer has the absolute right, at least as far as the NLRA is concerned, to terminate his entire business for any reason

Finding employer terminated employee based on antiunion animus in part because of employer's comment about employee's "attitude"

In Turnbull Cone, we unequivocally established that "[c]ircumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient" to prove a section 8(a)(3) transgression.

Contrasting lawfully speeding up a long-planned operational change due to union activity, with unlawfully "suddenly decid[ing] to find a way to cut back ... to spite the Union"