§

Spectrum Juvenile Justice Services

368 NLRB No. 102 (N.L.R.B. 2019)
Spectrum Juvenile Justice Services

25 Cited authorities

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,623 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

  2. 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."

  3. 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"

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    440 U.S. 301 (1979)   Cited 225 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NLRB erred in requiring employer to disclose performance test scores of employees as information for collective bargaining, regardless of employee consent, because of the sensitive nature of the test scores

  7. 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

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

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

  9. 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

  10. 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