§

Marion Memorial Hospital

335 N.L.R.B. 1016 (N.L.R.B. 2001)
Marion Memorial Hospital

8 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. Brooks v. Labor Board

    348 U.S. 96 (1954)   Cited 300 times
    Holding that an employer has a duty to bargain in good faith for one year beginning on the date of certification of the bargaining representative by the Board

  3. Skyline Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    613 F.2d 1328 (5th Cir. 1980)   Cited 104 times
    Stating that conclusory assertion in brief could not establish that company had exercised due diligence in obtaining new evidence

  4. 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]]."

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Retired Persons Pharmacy v. N.L.R.B

    519 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1975)   Cited 44 times
    Affirming an ALJ's decision not to permit an employer to call employees to testify about whether they supported the union as of the withdrawal date because the employer “would clearly have been putting pressure on them to answer favorably” and “[i]f such questioning were allowed, management could withdraw recognition without basis and successfully defend itself by showing a lack of union support which in fact resulted not from employee dissatisfaction but rather from the withdrawal of recognition and subsequent proceedings”

  8. Section 6621 - Determination of rate of interest

    26 U.S.C. § 6621   Cited 1,873 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Applying a higher interest rate to past liabilities resulting from tax-motivated transactions