Bakersfield Memorial Hospital

11 Cited authorities

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.”
J.P. Stevens Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
461 F.2d 490 (4th Cir. 1972) Cited 60 times
Inquiring whether substantial evidence supported a finding that a benefit announcement was timed to "give [employees] cause to infer that the benefit might be withdrawn or future benefits withheld should they select a union to represent them"
N.L.R.B. v. Rich's of Plymouth, Inc.
578 F.2d 880 (1st Cir. 1978) Cited 25 times
Holding that employer did not violate NLRA by following established policy of refusing to rehire union employees who quit
Presbyterian/St. Luke's Medical Center v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
723 F.2d 1468 (10th Cir. 1983) Cited 18 times
No. 81-2107. December 23, 1983. Gina Kaiser and Clifton L. Elliott of Elliott, Kaiser Freeman, Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner. Jerrold Wohlgemuth, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, James D. Donathen, and Allison W. Brown, Jr., Attys., Washington, D.C., on brief), for respondent. Michael Radzilowsky and Lawrence A. Poltrock of DeJong
Idaho Falls Consol. Hospitals, v. N.L.R.B
731 F.2d 1384 (9th Cir. 1984) Cited 13 times
Nos. 82-7033, 82-7126. Argued and Submitted November 2, 1982. Withdrawn from Submission August 23, 1983. Resubmitted February 13, 1984. Decided April 25, 1984. Gary F. Overstreet, Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg Manley, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Elliott Moore, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Before KENNEDY and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, Senior District Judge. The Honorable William J.
N.L.R.B. v. Windsor Industries, Inc.
730 F.2d 860 (2d Cir. 1984) Cited 13 times
No. 355, Docket 83-4135. Argued December 15, 1983. Decided March 13, 1984. Joseph F. Frankl, Washington, D.C. (William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, and Peter Winkler, Atty., Washington, D.C.) for petitioner. Clifford P. Chaiet, Jericho, N.Y. (Pearl Chaiet, P.C., Jericho, N.Y.), for respondent. Petition from the National Labor Relations Board. Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge
N.L.R.B. v. K K Gourmet Meats, Inc.
640 F.2d 460 (3d Cir. 1981) Cited 16 times
In K K Gourmet Meats, the ALJ had characterized the violations of the Act as "minimal", 640 F.2d at 468; in this case the ALJ described the promotions and wage increases as "serious unfair labor practices."
N.L.R.B. v. Arrow Elastic Corp.
573 F.2d 702 (1st Cir. 1978) Cited 8 times
In Arrow, we found substantial evidence to uphold the finding of the Board that a speech by the employer promising that a fixed pension plan would be added to the existing profit sharing program was a promise of benefits resulting in an unfair labor practice.
N.L.R.B. v. Southbridge Sheet Metal Works
380 F.2d 851 (1st Cir. 1967) Cited 16 times
In NLRB v. Southbridge Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 380 F.2d 851 (1st Cir. 1967), the First Circuit considered this precise question.
N.L.R.B. v. Tommy's Spanish Foods, Inc.
463 F.2d 116 (9th Cir. 1972) Cited 8 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Tommy's Spanish Foods, Inc., 463 F.2d 116 (9th Cir. 1972), the employer met with the employees to inform them "[we] would never agree to any union demand to which `we were opposed as a matter of principle.'"

Bakersfield Memorial Hospital

11 Cited authorities

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.”

Inquiring whether substantial evidence supported a finding that a benefit announcement was timed to "give [employees] cause to infer that the benefit might be withdrawn or future benefits withheld should they select a union to represent them"

Holding that employer did not violate NLRA by following established policy of refusing to rehire union employees who quit

In K K Gourmet Meats, the ALJ had characterized the violations of the Act as "minimal", 640 F.2d at 468; in this case the ALJ described the promotions and wage increases as "serious unfair labor practices."

In Arrow, we found substantial evidence to uphold the finding of the Board that a speech by the employer promising that a fixed pension plan would be added to the existing profit sharing program was a promise of benefits resulting in an unfair labor practice.

In NLRB v. Southbridge Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 380 F.2d 851 (1st Cir. 1967), the First Circuit considered this precise question.

In N.L.R.B. v. Tommy's Spanish Foods, Inc., 463 F.2d 116 (9th Cir. 1972), the employer met with the employees to inform them "[we] would never agree to any union demand to which `we were opposed as a matter of principle.'"