§

St. Joseph's Hospital

233 N.L.R.B. 1116 (N.L.R.B. 1977)
St. Joseph's Hospital

6 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.

    385 U.S. 432 (1967)   Cited 265 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Approving "discovery-type standard"

  2. Curtiss-Wright, Wright Aero. Div. v. N.L.R.B

    347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965)   Cited 55 times
    Noting the Board has "considerable leeway in amplifying or expanding certain details not specifically set forth in the complaint if they accord with the general substance of the complaint"

  3. Timken Roller Bearing Company v. N.L.R.B

    325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963)   Cited 56 times
    In Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 971, 84 S.Ct. 1135, 12 L.Ed.2d 85 (1964), the court considered a union request for information concerning five grievances that awaited hearings before a chosen arbitrator.

  4. Fafnir Bearing Company v. N.L.R.B

    362 F.2d 716 (2d Cir. 1966)   Cited 24 times
    Relying upon the “clear and unmistakable waiver” rule

  5. N.L.R.B. v. Goodyear Aerospace Corporation

    388 F.2d 673 (6th Cir. 1968)   Cited 6 times

    No. 17470. January 29, 1968. J. Richard Thesing, 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, Gary Green, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief. Edward C. Kaminski, Akron, Ohio, for respondent, Buckingham, Doolittle Burroughs, Herman E. Rabe, Akron, Ohio, Robert Merrick, Akron, Ohio, Counsel, Goodyear Aerospace Corp., on brief. Before COMBS, Circuit Judge, and McALLISTER

  6. Henderson v. Allen

    1 U.S. 149 (1785)

    SEPTEMBER TERM, 1785. Bankson for the plaintiff — Rawle for the defendant. A Judgment had been entered at the settlement of the docket, and the defendant was taken in execution on a Ca. Sa. returnable to December Term 1785. He now applied for the benefit of the insolvent acts, although he was not taken in execution till the 26th of September, and his petition was presented subsequent to the application made by the debtors, on the third day of the term. THE COURT said that the practice under the act