§

Mat-Su Regional Medical Center

19-CA-180385 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 7, 2017)
Mat-Su Regional Medical Center

13 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 651 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 204 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. Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    437 U.S. 556 (1978)   Cited 196 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a newsletter that "urg[ed] employees to write their legislators to oppose incorporation of the state 'right-to-work' statute into a revised state constitution," "criticiz[ed] a Presidential veto of an increase in the federal minimum wage and urg[ed] employees to register to vote" was protected concerted activity

  4. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

    487 U.S. 1205 (1988)   Cited 105 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 80 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Mike Yurosek Son, Inc.

    53 F.3d 261 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that four employees who protested reduction in hours and then later refused a contradictory order to work longer hours engaged in concerted activity

  9. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 27 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

  10. Ewing v. N.L.R.B

    861 F.2d 353 (2d Cir. 1988)   Cited 23 times
    Approving the Meyers II rule

  11. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,474 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  12. Section 157 - Right of employees as to organization, collective bargaining, etc.

    29 U.S.C. § 157   Cited 3,296 times   97 Legal Analyses
    Granting employees the right to engage in or refrain from engaging in union activity