Carry Companies of Illinois, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

Acknowledging that, "where an employer establishes a regular pattern of overlooking certain violations of company policy, the employer may not later rely on such violations to satisfy its burden under Wright Line."

Medeco Sec. Locks v. National Lab. rel

Holding that no substantial evidence of knowledge could be inferred from the company's decision to fire a worker within a year after he had ceased to be a visible supporter of the union and had disavowed further interest in the union

N.L.R.B. v. Eastern Smelting Refining Corp.

In NLRB v. Eastern Smelting, 598 F.2d 666 (1st Cir. 1979), we held that the burden is on the Board to show that the discharge resulted from the improper motive alleged, and that except in clear cases, "the mere fact that the Board considers the asserted good reason less than compelling will not suffice...."

Torrington Extend-A-Care Emp. Ass'n v. N.L.R.B

Holding that Board could rely on circumstantial evidence to establish one person's knowledge of another's union activities

Fieldcrest Cannon v. National Labor Rela. Bd.

Noting that demeanor is a factor in determining credibility

N.L.R.B. v. Vemco, Inc.

Holding that an employer's statement that unionization would result in a work shortage resulting in reduced hours or layoffs was a permissible, objective prediction, and thus protected speech under § 8(c), where nothing suggested that the expected work shortage "was within [the employer's] control" or that the employer "would implement a cutback in hours or a layoff solely on its own initiative for reasons unrelated to the economic necessity of adjusting to a shortage of work"

Florida Steel Corp. v. N.L.R.B

Holding that company letter to employees advising them of their right to ask for an opportunity to obtain legal counsel before speaking with a NLRB agent following a failed union election was protected speech under the First Amendment and § 8(c)

Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

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

Ross Stores, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

Explaining that when the Board found that there was "no sufficient objective basis" for finding that employees viewed a statement as a threat, § 158(c) "plainly bars the Board not only from finding the speech was an unfair labor practice ... but also from using it as ‘evidence of an unfair labor practice.’ "

BE & K Construction Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.