USF Red Star, Inc.

12 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.
462 U.S. 393 (1983) Cited 655 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."
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
Garment Workers v. Labor Board
366 U.S. 731 (1961) Cited 213 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union cannot represent a group of employees for which it does not enjoy majority support
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
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Savair Manufacturing Co.
414 U.S. 270 (1973) Cited 123 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting that although an employee may not be "legally bound to vote for the union and has not promised to do so in any formal sense" some "would feel obliged " to cast a union vote after having signed a union recognition slip
Labor Board v. Drivers Local Union
362 U.S. 274 (1960) Cited 109 times 1 Legal Analyses
In NLRB v. Drivers Local 639, 362 U.S. 274 (1960), the Court held that § 8(b)(1)(A) was "a grant of power to the Board limited to authority to proceed against union tactics involving violence, intimidation, and reprisal or threats thereof."
Synergy Gas Corp. v. N.L.R.B
19 F.3d 649 (D.C. Cir. 1994) Cited 18 times
Reversing finding of discrimination where company introduced personnel records to demonstrate that other employees had been terminated for actions similar to that of the complaining employee
N.L.R.B. v. Norbar, Inc.
752 F.2d 235 (6th Cir. 1985) Cited 12 times
In NLRB v. Norbar, Inc., 752 F.2d 235 (6th Cir. 1985), the ALJ and the Board had found that the defendant had violated Section(s) 158(a)(3) by discharging an employee in retaliation for his union activities.
Gerry's Cash Markets, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
602 F.2d 1021 (1st Cir. 1979) Cited 16 times
No. 78-1539. Argued April 5, 1979. Decided August 8, 1979. Paul V. Mulkern, Jr., Boston, Mass., with whom Kingston Garrett, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for petitioner. Stephen Mayer, Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, and Andrew F. Tranovich, Atty., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition for review of an order from the National
Howard Johnson Co. v. N.L.R.B
702 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1983) Cited 11 times
Stating that substantial evidence review requires that one “take contradictory evidence in the record into account” (quoting Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at 487–88, 71 S.Ct. 456)

USF Red Star, Inc.

12 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 that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

Holding that a union cannot represent a group of employees for which it does not enjoy majority support

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

Noting that although an employee may not be "legally bound to vote for the union and has not promised to do so in any formal sense" some "would feel obliged " to cast a union vote after having signed a union recognition slip

In NLRB v. Drivers Local 639, 362 U.S. 274 (1960), the Court held that § 8(b)(1)(A) was "a grant of power to the Board limited to authority to proceed against union tactics involving violence, intimidation, and reprisal or threats thereof."

Reversing finding of discrimination where company introduced personnel records to demonstrate that other employees had been terminated for actions similar to that of the complaining employee

In NLRB v. Norbar, Inc., 752 F.2d 235 (6th Cir. 1985), the ALJ and the Board had found that the defendant had violated Section(s) 158(a)(3) by discharging an employee in retaliation for his union activities.

Stating that substantial evidence review requires that one “take contradictory evidence in the record into account” (quoting Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at 487–88, 71 S.Ct. 456)