Stabilus, Inc.

30 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 652 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."
Labor Board v. Brown
380 U.S. 278 (1965) Cited 473 times 2 Legal Analyses
Approving finding of § 8 violation when "employers' conduct is demonstrably so destructive of employee rights and so devoid of significant service to any legitimate business end that it cannot be tolerated consistently with the Act"
Holly Farms Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
517 U.S. 392 (1996) Cited 136 times
Holding that where statute's meaning is obvious, courts and Board must defer to Congress's unambiguous intent, but where ambiguity exists, courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute
Republic Aviation Corp. v. Board
324 U.S. 793 (1945) Cited 495 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."
Labor Board v. Mackay Co.
304 U.S. 333 (1938) Cited 535 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
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
Labor Board v. Cabot Carbon Co.
360 U.S. 203 (1959) Cited 57 times
Concluding that "dealing with" as used in 29 U.S.C. § 152 is a "broad term" and is not synonymous to "bargaining with"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. McGahey
233 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1956) Cited 133 times
In N.L.R.B. v. McGahey, 233 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1956), this court described casual and moderate inquiries, even as to union preference, absent evidence indicating that the employee has reason to consider the inquiries a threat of reprisals, as not constituting an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8(a)(1).
N.L.R.B. v. St. Francis Healthcare Centre
212 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2000) Cited 15 times
Observing that an employer’s "own campaign literature distributed after August 6 obviated any threat to reduce or eliminate benefits before bargaining began"

Stabilus, Inc.

30 Cited authorities

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."

Approving finding of § 8 violation when "employers' conduct is demonstrably so destructive of employee rights and so devoid of significant service to any legitimate business end that it cannot be tolerated consistently with the Act"

Holding that where statute's meaning is obvious, courts and Board must defer to Congress's unambiguous intent, but where ambiguity exists, courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute

Finding an absence of special circumstances where employer failed to introduce evidence of "unusual circumstances involving their plants."

Holding that an employer may replace striking workers with others to carry on business so long as the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practices

Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

Concluding that "dealing with" as used in 29 U.S.C. § 152 is a "broad term" and is not synonymous to "bargaining with"

Observing that an employer’s "own campaign literature distributed after August 6 obviated any threat to reduce or eliminate benefits before bargaining began"