Stamford Plaza Hotel and Conference, LP

18 Cited authorities

National Labor Rel. B. v. Kentucky R. Comm. C
532 U.S. 706 (2001) Cited 181 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit
Interstate Circuit v. U.S.
306 U.S. 208 (1939) Cited 513 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding proof of an explicit agreement unnecessary to establish antitrust conspiracy among movie distributors where, "knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it"
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
Healthcare Employees Union v. N.L.R.B
463 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 22 times
Listing circuit cases
E.C. Waste, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
359 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2004) Cited 23 times
Holding suspicious timing and "myriad violations of § 8" was substantial evidence supporting Board's finding of animus
Bourne v. N.L.R.B
332 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1964) Cited 93 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Joy Recovery Tech
134 F.3d 1307 (7th Cir. 1998) Cited 28 times
Concluding that "[i]n this case, timing is everything," where "[t]he closing of the department comes on the heels of the union's organizational activity," including filing a petition for a representation election
Reno Hilton Resorts v. N.L.R.B
196 F.3d 1275 (D.C. Cir. 1999) Cited 24 times
Concluding that "[t]he timing of the decision to contract out is suspect" where it "came on the heels of heavy union activity" and the employer knew of the purported rationale for its subcontracting decision long before it implemented that decision
Power Inc. v. N.L.R.B
40 F.3d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1994) Cited 26 times
Holding that coincident timing and uncontested § 8 violations was sufficient evidence to support Board's finding
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"

Stamford Plaza Hotel and Conference, LP

18 Cited authorities

Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit

Holding proof of an explicit agreement unnecessary to establish antitrust conspiracy among movie distributors where, "knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it"

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

Listing circuit cases

Holding suspicious timing and "myriad violations of § 8" was substantial evidence supporting Board's finding of animus

In Bourne, we held that interrogation which does not contain express threats is not an unfair labor practice unless certain "fairly severe standards" are met showing that the very fact of interrogation was coercive.

Concluding that "[i]n this case, timing is everything," where "[t]he closing of the department comes on the heels of the union's organizational activity," including filing a petition for a representation election

Concluding that "[t]he timing of the decision to contract out is suspect" where it "came on the heels of heavy union activity" and the employer knew of the purported rationale for its subcontracting decision long before it implemented that decision

Holding that coincident timing and uncontested § 8 violations was sufficient evidence to support Board's finding

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