11 Cited authorities
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 656 times 11 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 AnalysesHolding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.
369 U.S. 404 (1962) Cited 298 timesExplaining 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"
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 AnalysesHolding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act
N.L.R.B. v. Jamaica Towing, Inc.
632 F.2d 208 (2d Cir. 1980) Cited 50 timesHolding that "hallmark" violations of NLRA "include such employer misbehavior as the closing of a plant or threats of plant closure or loss of employment, the grant of benefits to employees, or the reassignment, demotion or discharge of union adherents" and lesser violations "include such employer misconduct as interrogating employees regarding their union sympathies, holding out a `carrot' of promised benefits, expressing anti-union resolve, threatening that unionization will result in decreased benefits, or suggesting that physical force might be used to exclude the union"
Abbey's Transp. Services, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
837 F.2d 575 (2d Cir. 1988) Cited 25 timesFinding violation when interrogator was a "lawyer-consultant"
N.L.R.B. v. Styletek, Div. of Pandel-Bradford
520 F.2d 275 (1st Cir. 1975) Cited 29 timesNo. 75-1017. Argued June 3, 1975. Decided August 6, 1975. Margery E. Lieber, Atty., with whom Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, and John H. Ferguson, Atty., were on brief, for petitioner. George H. Foley, Boston, Mass., with whom Hale Dorr, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, McENTEE
N.L.R.B. v. Long Island Airport Limousine Serv
468 F.2d 292 (2d Cir. 1972) Cited 26 timesAffirming NLRB finding of Section 8 violation where discharged employee, who was “union ‘spearhead’ for organizing the [c]ompany's drivers,” had been soliciting union support on day before abrupt discharge, and employer's asserted reasons that employee had poor employment record, had received traffic tickets, and submitted incomplete paperwork—including “a particularly serious incident ... that involved missing cash collections” for which he was warned—were contradictory and pretextual, and where treatment of other employees for similar misconduct was disparate
Holo-Krome Co. v. N.L.R.B
947 F.2d 588 (2d Cir. 1991) Cited 3 timesNos. 163, 322, Dockets 91-4061, 91-4085. Argued September 11, 1991. Decided October 15, 1991. Opinion on Denial of Rehearing Filed January 17, 1992. Burton Kainen, Hartford, Conn. (Diana Garfield, Siegel, O'Connor, Schiff, Zangari Kainen, P.C., on the brief), for petitioner-cross-respondent. Marilyn O'Rourke, Washington, D.C. (Jerry M. Hunter, Gen. Counsel, D. Randall Frye, Acting Deputy Gen. Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, and William R. Stewart, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel