§

WILKES-BARRE HOSPITAL COMPANY, LLC

04-CA-123748 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 17, 2014)
WILKES-BARRE HOSPITAL COMPANY, LLC

7 Cited authorities

  1. Litton Financial Printing Division v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    501 U.S. 190 (1991)   Cited 794 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a court must determine the validity of an arbitration agreement, it "cannot avoid that duty" just because the court must decide an issue on the merits

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Canning

    573 U.S. 513 (2014)   Cited 270 times   150 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because there was no quorum of validly appointed board members, the NLRB “lacked authority to act,” and the enforcement order was therefore “void ab initio ”

  3. Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co.

    484 U.S. 539 (1988)   Cited 327 times
    Holding that the remedy provided in §§ 515 and 502(g) "is limited to the collection of `promised contributions' and does not confer jurisdiction on district courts to determine whether an employer's unilateral decision to refuse to make post-contract contributions constitutes a violation of the NLRA."

  4. Labor Board v. Katz

    369 U.S. 736 (1962)   Cited 709 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"

  5. Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    253 F.3d 125 (D.C. Cir. 2001)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding that the following duration clause did not waive the union's rights: “The Effects Bargaining Agreement shall be effective as of May 30, 1994, and shall remain in effect until midnight on June 6, 1997, but not thereafter unless renewed or extended in writing by the parties”

  6. N.L.R.B. v. General Tire and Rubber Co.

    795 F.2d 585 (6th Cir. 1986)   Cited 7 times
    Concluding that the following duration clause did not waive the union's rights: “the benefits described herein shall be provided for ninety days following termination”

  7. 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