§

Hill Park Health Care Center

334 N.L.R.B. 328 (N.L.R.B. 2001)
Hill Park Health Care Center

13 Cited authorities

  1. Allentown Mack Sales & Service, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    522 U.S. 359 (1998)   Cited 426 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board "is not free to prescribe what inferences from the evidence it will accept and reject, but must draw all those inferences that the evidence fairly demands"

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.

    406 U.S. 272 (1972)   Cited 478 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a successor is not bound to substantive terms of previous collective bargaining agreement

  3. Vincent Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    209 F.3d 727 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 44 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Vincent Industrial, we directed the Board to premise every bargaining order on an "explicit[ balanc[ing][of] three considerations: (1) the employees' Section 7 rights [ 29 U.S.C. § 157]; (2) whether other purposes of the [NLRA] override the rights of employees to choose their bargaining representatives; and (3) whether alternative remedies are adequate to remedy the violations of the [NLRA]]."

  4. Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    117 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997)   Cited 27 times   3 Legal Analyses
    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

  5. Exxel/Atmos, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    28 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1994)   Cited 28 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stressing appropriateness of bargaining order to remedy bad faith bargaining during certification year

  6. Nazareth Regional High School v. N.L.R.B

    549 F.2d 873 (2d Cir. 1977)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that, to rebut a presumption of majority status, "the employer must produce clear and convincing evidence of loss of union support capable of raising a reasonable doubt of the union's continuing majority"

  7. Hedstrom Co. v. N.L.R.B

    558 F.2d 1137 (3d Cir. 1977)   Cited 32 times
    Holding statements made by low-level supervisor to be coercive

  8. Beverly Enterprises v. National Lab. rel

    139 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 1998)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Referring to protection under § 8(c) in campaign context

  9. Harpercollins v. National Labor Relations Bd.

    79 F.3d 1324 (2d Cir. 1996)   Cited 8 times
    Finding a § 8 violation where there was evidence of "an implicit threat of repercussions for union loyalty, as opposed to company loyalty"

  10. 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."