United Parcel Service

7 Cited authorities

  1. 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
  2. Bally's Park Place Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    646 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 2011)   Cited 42 times
    Finding unlawful motive where employee's discharge came only days after manager observed him at pro-union rally
  3. N.L.R.B. v. Consolidated Bus Transit

    577 F.3d 467 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 16 times
    Interpreting similar language in 29 C.F.R. § 101.10 as meaning "that the Board's procedures are to be controlled by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as far as practicable" (cleaned up)
  4. Allegheny Ludlum Corporation v. N.L.R.B

    104 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Allegheny Ludlum, however, we upheld an unfair labor practice violation where the employer warned it would "no longer find ways" to avoid laying off employees if they joined a union.
  5. 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

  6. Ramsey v. N.L.R.B

    327 F.2d 784 (7th Cir. 1964)   Cited 44 times
    In Ramsey v. NLRB, 327 F.2d 784 (7th Cir.) cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1003, 84 S.Ct. 1938, 12 L.Ed.2d 1052 (1964), the Seventh Circuit declared that "[t]here is no statutory or constitutional right to be present at an arbitration hearing," rejecting the employee's contention that his rights were denied since he was not given notice of the arbitration hearing and did not appear there. The court specifically noted that the facts showed "that the company fully and adequately defended [the employee's] rights at the hearing."
  7. Tel Data Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    90 F.3d 1195 (6th Cir. 1996)   Cited 5 times
    Sustaining finding of unlawful motivation in part because "in contrast to other employees when confronted [with the same misconduct], Frederick, a nine-year employee with no history of disciplinary problems, was given no opportunity to explain his actions before his termination"