Central Freight Lines, Inc.

14 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. Walton Mfg. Co.
369 U.S. 404 (1962) Cited 298 times
Explaining 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"
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
N.L.R.B. v. Shelby Memorial Hosp. Ass'n
1 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 1993) Cited 27 times
Ordering employees to remove union patches based on uniform policy not previously enforced violated § 158
Abbey's Transp. Services, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
837 F.2d 575 (2d Cir. 1988) Cited 25 times
Finding violation when interrogator was a "lawyer-consultant"
Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966) Cited 56 times
Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination
Marshall Durbin Poultry Co. v. N.L.R.B
39 F.3d 1312 (5th Cir. 1994) Cited 13 times
No. 93-4057. December 16, 1994. Sidney F. Lewis, Henry T. Arrington, Kullman, Inman, Bee, Downing Banta, New Orleans, LA, for appellant. William Baudler, Aileen Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Paul J. Spielberg N.L.R.B., Washington, DC, for appellee. Hugh Frank Malone, Regional Director, N.L.R.B., Region 15, New Orleans, LA, for other Interested Parties. Petition for Review and Cross Application for Enforcement of a Decision of the National Labor Relations Board. Before REAVLEY, GARWOOD
Royal Development Co., Ltd. v. N.L.R.B
703 F.2d 363 (9th Cir. 1983) Cited 18 times
Nos. 81-7638, 81-7736. Argued and Submitted August 9, 1982. Decided February 22, 1983. Robert Katz, Jeffrey Harris, Honolulu, Hawaii, for petitioner/cross-respondent. William R. Stewart, Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent/cross-petitioner. On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before CHAMBERS and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, District Judge. Honorable William J. Jameson, United States District Judge, District of Montana, sitting
J.P. Stevens Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
638 F.2d 676 (4th Cir. 1980) Cited 15 times
Recognizing significance of employer's history of § 8 violations
Section 151 - Findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 151 Cited 5,099 times 34 Legal Analyses
Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"

Central Freight Lines, Inc.

14 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"

Explaining 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"

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

Ordering employees to remove union patches based on uniform policy not previously enforced violated § 158

Finding violation when interrogator was a "lawyer-consultant"

Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination

Recognizing significance of employer's history of § 8 violations

Finding that "protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce" and declaring a policy of "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining"