Oakwood Care Center

14 Cited authorities

Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass
404 U.S. 157 (1971) Cited 630 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit
Boire v. Greyhound Corp.
376 U.S. 473 (1964) Cited 426 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding status of employer as independent contractor is immaterial because focus of joint employment inquiry is on employees, not employers
Labor Board v. Erie Resistor Corp.
373 U.S. 221 (1963) Cited 358 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"
Labor Board v. Insurance Agents
361 U.S. 477 (1960) Cited 324 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"
American Trucking v. A., T. S. F. R. Co.
387 U.S. 397 (1967) Cited 164 times
Declaring that an agency, “in light of reconsideration of the relevant facts and its mandate, may alter its past interpretation and overturn past administrative rulings”
A.F. of L. v. Labor Board
308 U.S. 401 (1940) Cited 340 times
Holding that certification is not a final order
Labor Board v. Truck Drivers Union
353 U.S. 87 (1957) Cited 197 times
Discussing congressional debate over the Taft-Hartley amendments of 1947
Pittsburgh Glass Co. v. Board
313 U.S. 146 (1941) Cited 294 times
In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.
Labor Board v. Steelworkers
357 U.S. 357 (1958) Cited 72 times
In United Steelworkers, the Court warned that the NLRA "does not command that labor organizations as a matter of abstract law, under all circumstances, be protected in the use of every possible means of reaching the minds of individual workers, nor that they are entitled to use a medium of communication simply because the employer is using it."
Gallenkamp Stores Co. v. N.L.R.B
402 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1968) Cited 37 times
In Gallenkamp Stores Co. v. N.L.R.B., 402 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1968), the court considered this issue and upheld the Board's designation of a storewide unit in the Commerce, California K-Mart.
Section 159 - Representatives and elections
29 U.S.C. § 159 Cited 2,441 times 12 Legal Analyses
Granting a bargaining unit the exclusive right to represent employees in it

Oakwood Care Center

14 Cited authorities

Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit

Finding status of employer as independent contractor is immaterial because focus of joint employment inquiry is on employees, not employers

Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"

Holding that, subject to the duty to bargain in good faith, "parties should have wide latitude in their negotiations"

Declaring that an agency, “in light of reconsideration of the relevant facts and its mandate, may alter its past interpretation and overturn past administrative rulings”

Holding that certification is not a final order

Discussing congressional debate over the Taft-Hartley amendments of 1947

In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.

In Gallenkamp Stores Co. v. N.L.R.B., 402 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1968), the court considered this issue and upheld the Board's designation of a storewide unit in the Commerce, California K-Mart.

Granting a bargaining unit the exclusive right to represent employees in it