McLaren Health Care Corp.

10 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"
City of Prior Lake v. Shakopee
475 U.S. 1011 (1986) Cited 136 times
Rejecting argument that Congress intended to limit forfeiture to include only the property titled to defendant at the time of conviction
Garment Workers v. Labor Board
366 U.S. 731 (1961) Cited 213 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union cannot represent a group of employees for which it does not enjoy majority support
Labor Bd. v. Greyhound Lines
303 U.S. 261 (1938) Cited 264 times
In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.
Linden Lumber Division, Summer & Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
419 U.S. 301 (1974) Cited 55 times 12 Legal Analyses
Recognizing "that while the election process has acknowledged superiority in ascertaining whether a union has majority support, [signed employee authorization] cards may adequately reflect employee sentiment"
National Labor Relations Bd. v. Katz's Deli
80 F.3d 755 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 57 times
Finding employer's challenge premature because compliance proceeding had not yet occurred
N.L.R.B. v. Lyon Ryan Ford, Inc.
647 F.2d 745 (7th Cir. 1981) Cited 38 times
In Lyon Ryan Ford, after looking through the union authorization cards, the employer and Union discussed details in the Union's proposed contract and the employer added up figures on his adding machine to determine how far apart the parties were on expected wages and benefits.
Human Development Ass'n v. N.L.R.B
937 F.2d 657 (D.C. Cir. 1991) Cited 20 times 1 Legal Analyses
No. 89-1551. Argued October 18, 1990. Decided July 9, 1991. Martin Gringer, Melville, N.Y., for petitioner. Jonathan Walters, Philadelphia, Pa., for intervenor. Scott D. MacDonald, Attorney, N.L.R.B., with whom Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Peter Winkler, Supervisory Atty., N.L.R.B., were on the brief, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Marion L. Griffin also entered an appearance, Washington, D.C., for respondent. John Hogrogian and Michael Adler were on the brief, New
Georgetown Hotel v. N.L.R.B
835 F.2d 1467 (D.C. Cir. 1987) Cited 7 times
No. 86-1643. Argued October 8, 1987. Decided December 29, 1987. Maurice Baskin, with whom Robert G. Ames, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for petitioner. Richard A. Cohen, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom Howard E. Perlstein, Atty., Rosemary M. Collyer, Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for respondent. Elliott Moore, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.,
Haddon House Food Products, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
764 F.2d 182 (3d Cir. 1985) Cited 5 times
Holding that Board remedy ordering employer and union to reimburse employees for fees and dues paid pursuant to unlawful union-security clause was not an abuse of discretion and was "particularly appropriate for restoration of a climate of neutrality"

McLaren Health Care Corp.

10 Cited authorities

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

Rejecting argument that Congress intended to limit forfeiture to include only the property titled to defendant at the time of conviction

Holding that a union cannot represent a group of employees for which it does not enjoy majority support

In National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 572, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, three related corporations were involved. The two respondents claimed that the third corporation was the `employer'.

Recognizing "that while the election process has acknowledged superiority in ascertaining whether a union has majority support, [signed employee authorization] cards may adequately reflect employee sentiment"

Finding employer's challenge premature because compliance proceeding had not yet occurred

In Lyon Ryan Ford, after looking through the union authorization cards, the employer and Union discussed details in the Union's proposed contract and the employer added up figures on his adding machine to determine how far apart the parties were on expected wages and benefits.

Holding that Board remedy ordering employer and union to reimburse employees for fees and dues paid pursuant to unlawful union-security clause was not an abuse of discretion and was "particularly appropriate for restoration of a climate of neutrality"