In Peoples Gas, the court recognized, for the first time, the Board's obligation to provide a reasoned explanation for ordering an affirmative bargaining order: "A remedial order should recognize the competing considerations which are potentially affected by the remedy chosen, be grounded in factual determinations rather than speculation, and explain how, in light of present circumstances its remedy can be expected to effectuate the purposes of the Act."Id. at 45 (footnote omitted).
Noting that, "[b]ecause affirmative bargaining orders interfere with the employee free choice that is a core principle of the Act," we "view them with suspicion" and demand special justification for them
Noting that because the party "failed to raise a particularized challenge to the bargaining order before the Board, this court has no authority to address the issue"
Holding that substantial continuity "is evaluated principally from the employees' perspective, the crucial question being whether those employees who have been retained will understandably view their job situations as essentially unaltered"