§

St. John'S General Hospital Of Allegheny County- Adr Center

281 N.L.R.B. 1163 (N.L.R.B. 1986)
St. John'S General Hospital Of Allegheny County- Adr Center

10 Cited authorities

  1. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 712 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

  2. 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.

  3. Labor Board v. Electrical Workers

    346 U.S. 464 (1953)   Cited 125 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Upholding discharge where employees publicly disparaged quality of employer's product, with no discernible relationship to pending labor dispute

  4. Magnesium Casting Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    401 U.S. 137 (1971)   Cited 74 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Approving that practice

  5. Montefiore Hospital Medical Ctr. v. N.L.R.B

    621 F.2d 510 (2d Cir. 1980)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 560, 790, Dockets 79-4156, 79-4184. Argued January 14, 1980. Decided April 28, 1980. Jerold D. Jacobson, New York City (David H. Diamond, Fred Kolikoff, Guggenheimer Untermyer, New York City, of counsel), for employer-petitioner. Robert Sewell, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (Norton J. Come, Acting Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Assn. Gen. Counsel, James Y. Callear, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington

  6. Advertisers Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B

    677 F.2d 544 (7th Cir. 1982)   Cited 10 times

    Nos. 81-2041, 81-1767. Argued January 6, 1982. Decided April 27, 1982. Russ R. Mueller, Milwaukee, Wis., for petitioner. Joseph E. Mayer, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Before CUMMINGS, Chief Judge, MARKEY, Chief Judge, and POSNER, Circuit Judge. The Honorable Howard T. Markey, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, is sitting by designation. MARKEY, Chief Judge. Appeal No. 81-2041

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Northern California District Council of Hod Carriers & Common Laborers of America

    389 F.2d 721 (9th Cir. 1968)   Cited 21 times

    No. 21569. January 25, 1968. Robert M. Lieber, Washington, D.C. (argued), Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Roy O. Hoffman, Director, N.L.R.B., San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Charles P. Scully, Donald C. Carroll, San Francisco, Cal., W. Thomas Arruda, Oakland, Cal., Levy, DeRoy, Geffner Van Bourg, San Francisco, Cal., for respondents. Before HAMLIN, DUNIWAY and

  8. N.L.R.B. v. Shawnee Industries, Inc.

    333 F.2d 221 (10th Cir. 1964)   Cited 23 times
    Holding promulgation of an overly broad rule without enforcement not illegal under the special circumstances presented

  9. Donovan v. N.L.R.B

    520 F.2d 1316 (2d Cir. 1975)   Cited 9 times
    Finding union members' mass picketing, threats, assaults and some property damage insufficient to sustain the "extraordinary sanction of withholding an otherwise appropriate remedial bargaining order"

  10. N.L.R.B. v. Master Slack

    618 F.2d 6 (6th Cir. 1980)   Cited 5 times

    No. 77-1641. March 20, 1980. Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate General Counsel, N.L.R.B., Jay Shanklin, Mary Schuette, Washington, D.C., Raymond A. Jacobson, Director Region 26, N.L.R.B., Memphis, Tenn., for petitioner. Yelverton Cowherd, W. Kirby Bowling, Bowling Jackson, Memphis, Tenn., for respondents. Before KENNEDY, MARTIN and JONES, Circuit Judges. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) petitions for enforcement of its decision and order, which found violations of Sections 8(a)(1), (3)