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

4 Citing cases

  1. 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."

  2. 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.

  3. 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.’ ”

  4. Price v. Unite Here Local 25

    883 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2012)   Cited 6 times
    Explaining that parties may enter into an enforceable side agreement that supplements original collective bargaining agreement

    Side letters mutually agreed to by the parties in a collective bargaining relationship may supplement the original collective bargaining agreement. See N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp. v. NLRB, 649 F.3d 723, 726 (D.C.Cir.2011) (“the collective bargaining agreement ... includes a ‘side letter’ ”); see also Moreau v. James River–Otis, Inc., 652 F.Supp. 1030, 1031 (D.Me.1987) (“The proposed side agreement constituted an exception to the general provision in the collective bargaining agreement....”); Evansville–Vanderburgh Sch. Corp. v. Evansville Teachers Ass'n, 494 N.E.2d 321, 325–26 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (side letter that declared “this letter will serve to supplement the collective bargaining agreement” was part of the collective bargaining agreement). Hence, even if the probationary period established in the Letter of Agreement conflicts with provisions of the master CBA, the terms agreed to in the side letter control this case.