§

Opportunity Homes, Inc.

315 N.L.R.B. 1210 (N.L.R.B. 1994)
Opportunity Homes, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

  1. 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."

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,035 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

  3. 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

  4. Wilson Trophy Co. v. N.L.R.B

    989 F.2d 1502 (8th Cir. 1993)   Cited 21 times
    Affirming Board's finding that the employer promulgated a rule in violation of § 8 where the warehouse supervisor told employees not to discuss wages

  5. Beverly California Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    970 F.2d 1548 (6th Cir. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that RNs were supervisors within meaning of § 2 where they were responsible for making sure staff employees provided adequate patient care, and had authority to transfer LPN's and nurses' aides between wings

  6. Health Care Retirement Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    987 F.2d 1256 (6th Cir. 1993)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that LPNs and RNs were "supervisors" where it was clear that duties of staff nurse clearly required both assigning aides to specific tasks and directing the operation of the aides, as well as the entire nursing home, when DON or assistant was not present

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second

  8. Section 6621 - Determination of rate of interest

    26 U.S.C. § 6621   Cited 1,873 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Applying a higher interest rate to past liabilities resulting from tax-motivated transactions