Jewish Home for the Elderly of Fairfield County

20 Cited authorities

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co.
395 U.S. 575 (1969) Cited 1,035 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"
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
Holly Farms Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
517 U.S. 392 (1996) Cited 136 times
Holding that where statute's meaning is obvious, courts and Board must defer to Congress's unambiguous intent, but where ambiguity exists, courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute
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
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.”
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
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Baptist Hospital, Inc.
442 U.S. 773 (1979) Cited 71 times 2 Legal Analyses
Upholding solicitation ban in corridors and sitting rooms
Brockton Hosp. v. N.L.R.B
294 F.3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2002) Cited 17 times
In Brockton Hospital, the hospital employer maintained a confidentiality policy providing that "[i]nformation concerning patients, [nurses], or hospital operations should not be discussed..., except strictly in connection with hospital business."
Frazier Industrial Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B
213 F.3d 750 (D.C. Cir. 2000) Cited 15 times
Finding that employment application which stated that “false information, omissions, or misrepresentations may result in a discharge of the employee” was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff would have been discharged for conduct at issue, and that company policy manual specifying that falsification of records would warrant immediate dismissal was immaterial where manual had not been distributed to employee prior to employee's termination
N.L.R.B. v. St. Francis Healthcare Centre
212 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. 2000) Cited 15 times
Observing that an employer’s "own campaign literature distributed after August 6 obviated any threat to reduce or eliminate benefits before bargaining began"

Jewish Home for the Elderly of Fairfield County

20 Cited authorities

Holding a bargaining order may be necessary "to re-establish the conditions as they existed before the employer's unlawful campaign"

Holding that the burden of proving a statutory exception generally falls on the party who claims a benefit

Holding that where statute's meaning is obvious, courts and Board must defer to Congress's unambiguous intent, but where ambiguity exists, courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute

Holding that, in the context of solicitation rules, such circumstances are required to justify restrictions on solicitation during nonworking time

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.”

Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

Upholding solicitation ban in corridors and sitting rooms

In Brockton Hospital, the hospital employer maintained a confidentiality policy providing that "[i]nformation concerning patients, [nurses], or hospital operations should not be discussed..., except strictly in connection with hospital business."

Observing that an employer’s "own campaign literature distributed after August 6 obviated any threat to reduce or eliminate benefits before bargaining began"