§

Kiewit Power Constructors Co.

355 N.L.R.B. 708 (N.L.R.B. 2010)
Kiewit Power Constructors Co.

7 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Labor Board v. Burnup Sims

    379 U.S. 21 (1964)   Cited 106 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thor Power Tool Co.

    351 F.2d 584 (7th Cir. 1965)   Cited 68 times
    Concluding that "when the entire record is considered there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that [employee's] discharge was the result of his having presented a grievance to the management" even though employee was overheard referring to company's superintendent as "the horse's ass" and was thereafter summarily discharged

  4. International Un. of Op'ing Eng'rs v. N.L.R.B

    350 F.3d 105 (D.C. Cir. 2003)   Cited 3 times

    No. 02-1300. Argued October 17, 2003. Decided December 2, 2003. On Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Helen L. Morgan argued the cause for the petitioner. Richard F. Griffin was on brief. William M. Bernstein, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for the respondent. Arthur F. Rosenfeld, General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, and Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, were

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Vought Corp.—MLRS Systems Division

    788 F.2d 1378 (8th Cir. 1986)   Cited 9 times

    No. 85-1271. Submitted November 15, 1985. Decided April 21, 1986. John B. Shepard, Dallas, Tex., for respondent. Jesse Gill, of the N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Petition from National Labor Relations Board. Before HEANEY, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges. HEANEY, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order which found that Vought Corporation — MLRS Systems Division (the Company) committed several violations of sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3)

  6. N.L.R.B. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

    694 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1982)   Cited 9 times
    Upholding NLRB's determination that employee's repeated statement—“I'm going to see that [expletive] fry”—was “at most ... ambiguous,” and reasoning that “however sympathetic we might be to the Company's plight, we simply cannot adopt the Company's arguments [that the comments were so extreme that they necessarily fall outside the Act's protection] because our review is restricted to the substantial evidence test”

  7. Shell Oil Company v. N.L.R.B

    561 F.2d 1196 (5th Cir. 1977)   Cited 2 times

    No. 76-4234. Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I. October 27, 1977. Rehearing Denied December 19, 1977. Lawrence J. Molony, Alvin B. Gibson, Atty., Shell Oil Co., New Orleans, La., for petitioner-cross respondent. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Carl L. Taylor, Associate Gen. Counsel, Kenneth B. Hipp, Supervisor