§

Presbyterian University Hospital

298 N.L.R.B. 471 (N.L.R.B. 1990)
Presbyterian University Hospital

5 Cited authorities

  1. 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.

  2. American Hosp. Ass'n v. N.L.R.B.

    718 F. Supp. 704 (N.D. Ill. 1989)   Cited 2 times

    No. 89 C 3279. July 25, 1989. Laurence H. Lenz, Jr., Brian Bulger, Daniel Kaufman, and Michael W. Duffee, Katten Muchin Zavis, Chicago, Ill., and Benjamin Civiletti, Venable, Baetjer Howard, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff. Eric G. Moskowitz, Diane Rosse, Norton J. Come, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Linda R. Sher, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L. R.B., Washington, D.C., and William G. Kocol, N.L.R.B., Region 13, Chicago, Ill., for defendants. George Kaufman and Woody N. Peterson, Dickstein, Shapiro Morin

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Burnett Construction Company

    350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965)   Cited 15 times

    No. 8039. August 6, 1965. Melvin H. Reifin, Atty., N.L.R.B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Warren M. Davidson, Atty., N.L.R.B., with him on the brief), for petitioner. Harold B. Wagner, Denver, Colo., for respondent. Before PHILLIPS, PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges. PICKETT, Circuit Judge. This proceeding is here on the Board's petition for enforcement of its order directing respondent to cease and desist

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Commerce Co.

    328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964)   Cited 12 times

    No. 20477. March 3, 1964. Rehearing Denied March 30, 1964. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Dominick Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Solomon I. Hirsh, Paula Omansky, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Charles R. Vickery, Jr., Liddell, Austin, Dawson Sapp, Houston, Tex., Harley W. McConnell, Houston, Tex., for respondent. Before HUTCHESON and GRIFFIN B. BELL, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge. HUTCHESON, Circuit

  5. Section 103.30 - Appropriate bargaining units in the health care industry

    29 C.F.R. § 103.30   Cited 13 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) This portion of the rule shall be applicable to acute care hospitals, as defined in paragraph (f) of this section: Except in extraordinary circumstances and in circumstances in which there are existing non-conforming units, the following shall be appropriate units, and the only appropriate units, for petitions filed pursuant to section 9(c)(1)(A)(i) or 9(c)(1)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, except that, if sought by labor organizations, various combinations of units may also