Albertson's, LLC

16 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 656 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."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,036 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
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 358 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
Guardsmark, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
475 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir. 2007) Cited 17 times 2 Legal Analyses
Striking down rule that only allowed employees to complain internally
Overnite Transportation Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
140 F.3d 259 (D.C. Cir. 1998) Cited 27 times
Holding that agency is provable only by principal's conduct, and not by subjective beliefs of those dealing with alleged agent
Progressive Elec., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
453 F.3d 538 (D.C. Cir. 2006) Cited 13 times
Declining to hear an employer’s Section 8(c) argument because it had "not been raised before the Board"
FPC Holdings, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
64 F.3d 935 (4th Cir. 1995) Cited 23 times
Holding that company's knowledge of employee's union involvement was properly inferred from the fact that the employees discussed a planned union meeting openly in the company's warehouse and over the company's CB radio at a time when the company was closely monitoring one of the employee's behavior
Jackson Hosp. Corp. v. N.L.R.B
647 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011) Cited 6 times
Explaining that “[l]ong ago” the NLRB “clarified” that an employee has no right to bring a witness to a meeting, the “sole purpose” of which is to deliver a predetermined warning
Central Transport Inc. v. N.L.R.B
997 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir. 1993) Cited 22 times
In Central Transport the court rejected the Board's finding that Central had a joint employer duty to bargain with employees it leased from Big John Inc. because the union's representation petition and the Board's representation certification named only Big John Inc. as the employer.

Albertson's, LLC

16 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."

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

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

Striking down rule that only allowed employees to complain internally

Holding that agency is provable only by principal's conduct, and not by subjective beliefs of those dealing with alleged agent

Declining to hear an employer’s Section 8(c) argument because it had "not been raised before the Board"

Explaining that “[l]ong ago” the NLRB “clarified” that an employee has no right to bring a witness to a meeting, the “sole purpose” of which is to deliver a predetermined warning

In Central Transport the court rejected the Board's finding that Central had a joint employer duty to bargain with employees it leased from Big John Inc. because the union's representation petition and the Board's representation certification named only Big John Inc. as the employer.