§

Hobson Bearing International, Inc.

14-CA-156114 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 19, 2016)
Hobson Bearing International, Inc.

14 Cited authorities

  1. National Labor Rel. B. v. Kentucky R. Comm. C

    532 U.S. 706 (2001)   Cited 180 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America

    511 U.S. 571 (1994)   Cited 96 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the Board's test is inconsistent with both the statutory language and th[e] Court's precedents"

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Town & Country Electric, Inc.

    516 U.S. 85 (1995)   Cited 85 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding "employee," as defined by the NLRA, "does not exclude paid union organizers"

  4. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

    487 U.S. 1205 (1988)   Cited 105 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

  5. 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

  6. Flex Frac Logistics, L.L.C. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    746 F.3d 205 (5th Cir. 2014)   Cited 30 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a workplace rule preventing employees from discussing wage information violates § 8

  7. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 80 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

  8. Multi-Ad Services, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    255 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 33 times
    Affirming Board's finding of coercive interrogation where an employee was asked "why he would want to bring a union into the company"

  9. 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.

  10. Securitas Critical Infrastructure Servs., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    817 F.3d 1074 (8th Cir. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Nos. 14–3102 14–3216. 03-24-2016 SECURITAS CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, INC., Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner v. Securitas Critical Infrastructure Services, Inc., Respondent. Thomas L. Henderson, argued, Memphis, TN, for petitioner/cross-respondent. Gregoire Sauter, argued, Washington, DC, for respondent/cross-petitioner. BYE, Circuit Judge. Thomas L. Henderson, argued, Memphis, TN, for petitioner/cross-respondent. Gregoire