§

Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, LLC

352 N.L.R.B. 179 (N.L.R.B. 2008)
Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, LLC

6 Cited authorities

  1. Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board

    379 U.S. 203 (1964)   Cited 731 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

  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. 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."

  4. Litton Microwave Cooking Products v. N.L.R.B

    949 F.2d 249 (8th Cir. 1991)   Cited 12 times
    Recognizing that mandamus may issue in that situation

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mike O'Connor Chevrolet-Buick-GMC Co.

    512 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1975)   Cited 16 times

    No. 74-1645. Submitted February 13, 1975. Decided March 18, 1975. Charles A. Shaw, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Charles Kelso, Atlanta, Ga., for respondents. Appeal from the National Labor Relations Board. Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, and WANGELIN and NANGLE, District Judges. H. KENNETH WANGELIN and JOHN F. NANGLE, District Judges, Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation. HEANEY, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second