§

Legacy Health Systems

354 N.L.R.B. 337 (N.L.R.B. 2009)
Legacy Health Systems

7 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

    388 U.S. 26 (1967)   Cited 322 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

  2. 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

  3. Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    564 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 2009)   Cited 30 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that two-member NLRB cannot issue decisions

  4. New Process Steel, L.P. v. N.L.R.B

    564 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2009)   Cited 15 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded that a two-member panel of the NLRB — the same panel that adjudicated the instant case — "had authority to hear the labor dispute," id. at 848.

  5. Northeastern Land v. National Labor Relations

    560 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2009)   Cited 14 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Northeastern Land Services v. NLRB, 560 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2009), the court held that, "[t]he Board's delegation of its institutional power to a panel that ultimately consisted of a two-member quorum because of a vacancy was lawful under the plain text of section 3(b)."

  6. Contractors' Labor Pool, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    323 F.3d 1051 (D.C. Cir. 2003)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding that the word "inherently" precludes reliance on "independent variables"

  7. Willmar Elec. Service, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    968 F.2d 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1992)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that paid union organizers are employees within the meaning of the Act, but noting that "we are ready to assume arguendo that Willmar made out so powerful a case of likely disloyalty that the Board would have had to conclude that rejection of Hendrix's application on that ground would have been legitimate and not in violation of the anti-discrimination and anti-coercion provisions of the Act."