New York and Presbyterian Hosp. v. N.L.R.B

6 Citing cases

  1. Teachers Coll. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    902 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2018)   Cited 4 times

    "Because a union’s other duties include the duty to see to it that an employer meets its [collective bargaining agreement] obligations, the employer’s duty to furnish information extends to data requested in order properly to administer and police a collective bargaining agreement." N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp. v. NLRB , 649 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)."[T]he duty imposed by section 8(a)(5) is subject to a minimum standard of relevance: ‘The union’s need and the employer’s duty depend, in all cases, on the probability that the desired information [is] relevant, and that it [will] be of use to the union in carrying out its statutory duties and responsibilities.

  2. KLB Industries, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    700 F.3d 551 (D.C. Cir. 2012)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Similarly, a list of prices could have helped the union with accomplishing its stated goal of “compar[ing] the prices of competitors.” Not only was this information relevant to whether KLB faced an increasingly competitive business atmosphere, but the union's contemporaneously proffered reason for needing the information—double-checking the company's competitiveness claim—satisfies the “minimum standard of relevance” established by our precedent. New York and Presbyterian Hospital v. NLRB, 649 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C.Cir.2011). Of course, the specific information necessary to verify a competitiveness claim will vary depending on the circumstances of the case.

  3. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    843 F.3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 2016)   Cited 3 times

    So long as the information is "relevant to the union's representational functions," the employer is obligated to provide it upon request. Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6–418 v. NLRB , 711 F.2d 348, 357 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ; see N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp. v. NLRB , 649 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2011). This standard is in keeping with the observation in Acme Industrial Co. that a "liberal standard as to relevancy" decreases the burdens and expense of resolving labor conflicts by providing the union with an opportunity to evaluate the merits of a claim without forcing it to "take a grievance all the way through to arbitration."

  4. Thryv, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    102 F.4th 727 (5th Cir. 2024)   Cited 4 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Thryv, the Board "standardiz[ed] [its] make-whole relief to expressly include the direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms suffered by affected employees...." 372 N.L.R.B. No. 22, slip op. at 7.

    An employer's duty to bargain collectively under § 8(a)(5) of the NLRA includes the duty to supply a union with information that will allow it to "negotiate effectively and . . . perform properly its . . . duties as bargaining representative." N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp. v. NLRB, 649 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). Employers accordingly have a "general obligation . . . to provide information that is needed by the [union] for the proper performance of its duties."

  5. Weigand v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    783 F.3d 889 (D.C. Cir. 2015)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Declining to hold union liable when it "did not authorize or otherwise condone the posting of the contested messages on the Facebook page" accessible to only union members and maintained by the union

    Furthermore, although Weigand's exceptions to the ALJ's decision referenced a comment posted by Cornelius, he never specifically challenged the ALJ's failure to find that the Union committed any unfair labor practices on the basis of any comment made by Cornelius. See N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp. v. NLRB, 649 F.3d 723, 733 (D.C.Cir.2011) (holding that respondent failed to preserve issue on petition for review where “the language [in respondent's exceptions to the ALJ's decision] was too broad to put the Board on notice” of respondent's specific objection). And during oral argument, counsel for Weigand conceded that his client was not claiming that any comments posted by Union agents were threats. Therefore, Weigand's belated claims regarding Cornelius are not properly before the court.

  6. Allied Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    668 F.3d 758 (D.C. Cir. 2012)   Cited 20 times

    A. Standard of Review This court reviews the Board's factual findings for substantial evidence, upholds the Board's application of law to facts “unless arbitrary or otherwise erroneous,” N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp. v. NLRB, 649 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C.Cir.2011) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), and gives “substantial deference” to inferences the Board draws from the facts, Halle Enters., Inc. v. NLRB, 247 F.3d 268, 271 (D.C.Cir.2001) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, where “ ‘the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the [Board's] answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.’ ”