T.M., on behalf of A.W., a child v. J.W.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding there was \no doubt\ the discouragement requirement was met where the employer's conduct \surely may have [had] a discouraging effect on either present or future concerted activity\
• upholding Board decision that employer’s payment of vacation benefits to replacements, crossovers, and nonstrikers but not to strikers violated Act because of its destructive effect on concerted activity
• upholding Board decision that employer's payment of vacation benefits to replacements, crossovers, and nonstrikers but not to strikers violated Act because of its destructive effect on concerted activity
• upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting benefits to strike-breakers but not strikers because of “discouraging effect on ... future concerted activity”
• inferring discouragement where employer gave certain benefits to \employees who are distinguishable only by their participation in protected concerted activity\
• explaining an employer discriminates under § 158(a)(3) by “paying accrued benefits to one group of employees while announcing the extinction of the same benefits for another group of employees who are distinguishable only by their participation in protected concerted activity”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).