§

Wake Electric Membership Corp.

338 N.L.R.B. 298 (N.L.R.B. 2002)
Wake Electric Membership Corp.

11 Cited authorities

  1. 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."

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

    395 U.S. 575 (1969)   Cited 1,036 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 358 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  4. NLRB v. CWI of Maryland, Inc.

    127 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 1997)   Cited 27 times
    Enforcing bargaining order where employer constructively discharged all bargaining unit employees

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Jamaica Towing, Inc.

    632 F.2d 208 (2d Cir. 1980)   Cited 50 times
    Holding that "hallmark" violations of NLRA "include such employer misbehavior as the closing of a plant or threats of plant closure or loss of employment, the grant of benefits to employees, or the reassignment, demotion or discharge of union adherents" and lesser violations "include such employer misconduct as interrogating employees regarding their union sympathies, holding out a `carrot' of promised benefits, expressing anti-union resolve, threatening that unionization will result in decreased benefits, or suggesting that physical force might be used to exclude the union"

  6. Garvey Marine, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    245 F.3d 819 (D.C. Cir. 2001)   Cited 7 times
    Upholding Board's decision to enforce bargaining order despite significant turnover among employees after order was issued

  7. America's Best Quality Coatings Corp. v. NLRB

    44 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 1995)   Cited 12 times

    Nos. 93-4039, 94-1173, and 94-1198. Argued October 4, 1994. Decided January 4, 1995. James R. Scott, Alan M. Levy (argued), Lindner Marsack, Milwaukee, WI, for petitioner. John C. Truesdale, Robert J. Englehart, Contempt Litigation Branch, Aileen A. Armstrong, Linda J. Dreeben, Deborah E. Shrager (argued), Appellate Court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, DC, Joseph A. Szabo, Director, N.L.R.B., Milwaukee, WI, for N.L.R.B. Mary E. Leary (argued), Pittsburgh, PA, Terry Davis, Elizabeth Levie, United

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Cumberland Shoe Corporation

    351 F.2d 917 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 49 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Cumberland we emphasized that "In no instance did any employee testify that he was told that the election was the only purpose of the card."

  9. Harpercollins v. National Labor Relations Bd.

    79 F.3d 1324 (2d Cir. 1996)   Cited 8 times
    Finding a § 8 violation where there was evidence of "an implicit threat of repercussions for union loyalty, as opposed to company loyalty"

  10. In re PNP Holdings v. Court Square Capital

    141 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 6 times

    No. 96-35835. Argued and Submitted December 3, 1997 — Seattle, Washington. Filed March 18, 1998. Before Wright, Reavley and Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges. The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. OPINION: MEMORANDUM This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Citicorp, through separate entities named as defendants, purchased