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

2 Citing cases

  1. San Miguel Hosp. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    697 F.3d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 2012)   Cited 7 times

    The Board suggests that we should not even consider these first two procedural arguments because the Hospital failed to timely raise them before the agency. Ordinarily, of course, we lack jurisdiction to hear arguments not raised before the Board in the first instance. 29 U.S.C. § 160(e); N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp. v. NLRB, 649 F.3d 723, 733 (D.C.Cir.2011). But there is no dispute here that the Hospital did make these arguments in the refusal-to-bargain proceedings—indeed, the Board specifically considered and rejected both of them in the Refusal–to–Bargain Order directly before us.

  2. 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.