Lee's Industries, Inc. Lee's Home Health Services, Inc. and Lee's Companies, Inc. (Single Employer)

7 Cited authorities

  1. 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"
  2. 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
  3. Dyer v. MacDougall

    201 F.2d 265 (2d Cir. 1952)   Cited 321 times
    Holding that witness demeanor may persuade a jury to "assume the truth of what he denied," but a court cannot allow a case to go to the jury on such evidence
  4. N.L.R.B. v. Consolidated Bus Transit

    577 F.3d 467 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 16 times
    Interpreting similar language in 29 C.F.R. ยง 101.10 as meaning "that the Board's procedures are to be controlled by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as far as practicable" (cleaned up)
  5. 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
  6. Felix Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    251 F.3d 1051 (D.C. Cir. 2001)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Felix, an employee telephoned his supervisor to inquire about additional wages the employer owed him for working night shifts.
  7. Phillips v. General Services Admin

    878 F.2d 370 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 14 times
    In Phillips, the employee was charged with insubordination for failure to deliver to her superior within the time set by her superior documentary evidence that the balance on her government sponsored Diners Club card had been paid. Because the agency failed to prove the requisite intent to constitute the offense charged, this court determined that the agency had failed to meet its burden.