§

The Ohio Masonic Home, Inc.

295 N.L.R.B. 390 (N.L.R.B. 1989)
The Ohio Masonic Home, Inc.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips Inc. v. Walling

    324 U.S. 490 (1945)   Cited 538 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that exemptions from remedial legislation must be narrowly construed

  2. Tarter v. Raybuck

    470 U.S. 1051 (1985)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that the relief "requested by the plaintiff ordering the state to release its interest in real property" is similar to the "retroactive" relief barred by the Eleventh Amendment under Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662, and not the "prospective" relief permitted by Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Security Guard Service, Inc.

    384 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1967)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing "the standard reluctance to apply [a statutory] exception broadly"

  4. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Beacon Light Christian Nursing Home

    825 F.2d 1076 (6th Cir. 1987)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that LPNs and RNs were supervisors although LPNs did not have power to discharge or promote, LPNs' recommendations could lead to formal discipline action, LPNs instructed nurses' aides and were their team leaders, assigned patients to nurses' aides, and were responsible for their work

  5. Beverly Enterprises v. N.L.R.B

    661 F.2d 1095 (6th Cir. 1981)   Cited 18 times

    No. 79-1323. Argued April 15, 1981. Decided October 8, 1981. Ronald J. Santo, Joseph A. Ritok, Jr., Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow Trigg, Detroit, Mich., for petitioner. Elliott Moore, Linda Weisel, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., N.L.R.B., Bernard Gottfried, Detroit, Mich., for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before LIVELY and KEITH, Circuit Judges, and RICE, District Judge. The Honorable Walter H. Rice, Judge, United States District Court

  6. Newspaper Drivers & Handlers Local # 372 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    735 F.2d 969 (6th Cir. 1984)   Cited 4 times
    In Newspaper Drivers, the issue presented to the court was whether an employer can be equitably estopped from claiming that workers previously recognized as "employees" under NLRA § 2(3), 29 U.S.C. § 152(3), are actually supervisors and thus not covered by the NLRA.