§

Spectrum Health���Kent Community Campus

353 N.L.R.B. 996 (N.L.R.B. 2009)
Spectrum Health���Kent Community Campus

7 Cited authorities

  1. Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    517 U.S. 781 (1996)   Cited 59 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NLRB is due "considerable deference . . . by virtue of its charge to develop national labor policy"

  2. 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]]."

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ogle Protection Service, Inc.

    444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971)   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 21049. June 30, 1971. Stanley R. Zirkin, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner; Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Stanley R. Zirkin, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Douglas C. Dahn, Detroit, Mich., for respondents; Tolleson, Burgess Mead, Robert D. Welchli, Detroit, Mich., on brief. Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This case is before us a second

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Tennessee Coach Co.

    237 F.2d 907 (6th Cir. 1956)   Cited 2 times

    No. 12846. October 30, 1956. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Washington, D.C., Charles M. Ryan, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner. Anderson Snepp, Knoxville, Tenn., for respondent. Before MARTIN, MILLER and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This is a petition for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board. The only substantive question presented is whether the respondent could lawfully refuse to bargain with a union six weeks after it had been certified as bargaining representative, for

  7. Section 158 - Unfair labor practices

    29 U.S.C. § 158   Cited 10,316 times   84 Legal Analyses
    Granting employees a wage increase without bargaining with Local 355