§

Matsu Corp. d/b/a Matsu Sushi Restaurant

368 NLRB No. 16 (N.L.R.B. 2019)
Matsu Corp. d/b/a Matsu Sushi Restaurant

10 Cited authorities

  1. 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."

  2. New Process Steel v. N.L.R.B.

    560 U.S. 674 (2010)   Cited 141 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board cannot exercise its powers absent a lawfully appointed quorum

  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. 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"

  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 356 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  7. Traction Wholesale Center Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    216 F.3d 92 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 16 times
    Finding unlawful motive where employer discharged employee on same day that union asked for recognition

  8. 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

  9. Mushroom Transportation Company v. N.L.R.B

    330 F.2d 683 (3d Cir. 1964)   Cited 48 times
    In Mushroom Transportation Co. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 683, 685 (3d Cir. 1964), we held that to qualify as concerted activity "it must appear at the very least that [the conduct] was engaged in with the object of initiating or inducing or preparing for group action or that it had some relation to group action in the interest of the employees."

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Tamara Foods, Inc.

    692 F.2d 1171 (8th Cir. 1982)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding § 502 inapplicable in a case where there was no collective bargaining agreement