WOODCREST HEALTH CARE CENTER

22 Cited authorities

Labor Board v. Brown
380 U.S. 278 (1965) Cited 473 times 2 Legal Analyses
Approving finding of § 8 violation when "employers' conduct is demonstrably so destructive of employee rights and so devoid of significant service to any legitimate business end that it cannot be tolerated consistently with the Act"
American Ship Bldg. v. Labor Board
380 U.S. 300 (1965) Cited 350 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.
388 U.S. 26 (1967) Cited 322 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
Labor Board v. Erie Resistor Corp.
373 U.S. 221 (1963) Cited 358 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"
Radio Officers v. Labor Board
347 U.S. 17 (1954) Cited 470 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.
389 U.S. 375 (1967) Cited 233 times
In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
Care One at Madison Ave., LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
832 F.3d 351 (D.C. Cir. 2016) Cited 4 times
Rejecting similar purported catch-22
Laro Maintenance Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
56 F.3d 224 (D.C. Cir. 1995) Cited 23 times
Inferring discriminatory motive from, inter alia, an employer's professed desire to hire the best qualified workers and the employer's subsequent decision to hire employees with no relevant experience over union members with experience
Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
362 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1966) Cited 56 times
Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination

WOODCREST HEALTH CARE CENTER

22 Cited authorities

Approving finding of § 8 violation when "employers' conduct is demonstrably so destructive of employee rights and so devoid of significant service to any legitimate business end that it cannot be tolerated consistently with the Act"

Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful

Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct

Upholding Board decision prohibiting employer from granting super-seniority to strike-breakers because "[s]uper-seniority renders future bargaining difficult, if not impossible"

Holding that "[t]he policy of the Act is to insulate employees' jobs from their organizational rights"

In Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. 375, 88 S.Ct. 543, the Supreme Court was required to determine whether the employer violated the Act when it hired six new employees who had not previously worked for the company instead of six former strikers who had applied for reinstatement.

Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

Rejecting similar purported catch-22

Inferring discriminatory motive from, inter alia, an employer's professed desire to hire the best qualified workers and the employer's subsequent decision to hire employees with no relevant experience over union members with experience

Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination