§

Beverly Health & Rehabilitation Services

335 N.L.R.B. 635 (N.L.R.B. 2001)
Beverly Health & Rehabilitation Services

37 Cited authorities

  1. Sure-Tan, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    467 U.S. 883 (1984)   Cited 416 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NLRB could order reinstatement with back pay as a remedy for constructive discharge

  2. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 710 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

  3. Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    460 U.S. 693 (1983)   Cited 311 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union may, under certain circumstances, waive members' NLRA rights

  4. 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

  5. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board

    313 U.S. 177 (1941)   Cited 871 times
    Holding that the NLRA limits the Board's backpay authority to restoring “actual losses”

  6. Radio Union v. Broadcast Serv

    380 U.S. 255 (1965)   Cited 326 times
    Holding that two entities were a single employer and therefore that their gross receipts could be totaled together to establish jurisdiction under the National Labor Relations Act

  7. Beth Israel Hospital v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    437 U.S. 483 (1978)   Cited 220 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in the context of solicitation rules, such circumstances are required to justify restrictions on solicitation during nonworking time

  8. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

    385 U.S. 432 (1967)   Cited 265 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving "discovery-type standard"

  9. Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.

    356 U.S. 342 (1958)   Cited 296 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."

  10. 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