§

Michigan Bell Telephone Company

369 N.L.R.B. 124 (N.L.R.B. 2020)
Michigan Bell Telephone Company

18 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. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 708 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

  3. 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

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

    385 U.S. 432 (1967)   Cited 263 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving "discovery-type standard"

  5. 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

  6. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013)   Cited 141 times   145 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an arbitration agreement that prohibited an employee from pursuing claims collectively did not violate the NLRA and must be enforced

  7. Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.

    351 U.S. 149 (1956)   Cited 223 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the duty to produce information relevant to a bargaining issue is derivative from the broader statutory duty to bargain in good-faith

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Nursing

    870 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2017)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board applied the wrong legal standard where it "rel[ied] heavily on the fact that the [workers] did not frequently exercise their alleged supervisory power"

  9. King Soopers, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    859 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2017)   Cited 5 times

    No. 16-1316 C/w 16-1367 06-09-2017 KING SOOPERS, INC., Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Raymond M. Deeny, Colorado Springs, CO, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Jonathon M. Watson, Denver, CO. Amy H. Ginn, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Richard F. Griffin, Jr., General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Robert

  10. Asarco, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    86 F.3d 1401 (5th Cir. 1996)   Cited 22 times
    Finding of antiunion animus necessary to finding of section 8 violation