Pacific Coast M.S. Industries Co., Ltd

11 Cited authorities

Holly Farms Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
517 U.S. 392 (1996) Cited 136 times
Holding that where statute's meaning is obvious, courts and Board must defer to Congress's unambiguous intent, but where ambiguity exists, courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute
Labor Board v. Walton Mfg. Co.
369 U.S. 404 (1962) Cited 298 times
Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Savair Manufacturing Co.
414 U.S. 270 (1973) Cited 123 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting that although an employee may not be "legally bound to vote for the union and has not promised to do so in any formal sense" some "would feel obliged " to cast a union vote after having signed a union recognition slip
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Magnavox Co. of Tennessee
415 U.S. 322 (1974) Cited 76 times
In Magnavox, the Board changed its bifurcated rule and adopted the Eighth Circuit's view that the union had no power to waive employee distribution rights on behalf of either itself or another union.
Beverly Enterprises v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
148 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 1998) Cited 23 times 1 Legal Analyses
Nursing home
Holly Farms Corp. v. N.L.R.B
48 F.3d 1360 (4th Cir. 1995) Cited 14 times
Holding that employer had a duty to bargain with union over the effects of a merger on “wages, hours, work rules, work schedules, and work locations”
N.L.R.B. v. Best Products Co., Inc.
765 F.2d 903 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 23 times
In Best Products we stated that "while the court is not bound by the Board's view on retroactive application, it should defer to those views absent manifest injustice."
Waverly-Cedar Falls Health Care v. N.L.R.B
933 F.2d 626 (8th Cir. 1991) Cited 14 times
Holding that LPNs' authority to assign work to aides did not involve independent judgement where authority to assign work to aides simply involved following management's policy and procedure
Misericordia Hospital Medical Ctr. v. N.L.R.B
623 F.2d 808 (2d Cir. 1980) Cited 25 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding no supervisory status where the employee in question "had no authority to do more than orally counsel and reprimand employees."

Pacific Coast M.S. Industries Co., Ltd

11 Cited authorities

Holding that where statute's meaning is obvious, courts and Board must defer to Congress's unambiguous intent, but where ambiguity exists, courts must defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute

Explaining that the deferential standard of review is appropriate because the "[the ALJ] ... sees the witnesses and hears them testify, while the Board and the reviewing court look only at cold records"

Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

Noting that although an employee may not be "legally bound to vote for the union and has not promised to do so in any formal sense" some "would feel obliged " to cast a union vote after having signed a union recognition slip

In Magnavox, the Board changed its bifurcated rule and adopted the Eighth Circuit's view that the union had no power to waive employee distribution rights on behalf of either itself or another union.

Nursing home

Holding that employer had a duty to bargain with union over the effects of a merger on “wages, hours, work rules, work schedules, and work locations”

In Best Products we stated that "while the court is not bound by the Board's view on retroactive application, it should defer to those views absent manifest injustice."

Holding that LPNs' authority to assign work to aides did not involve independent judgement where authority to assign work to aides simply involved following management's policy and procedure

Finding no supervisory status where the employee in question "had no authority to do more than orally counsel and reprimand employees."