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

13 Citing cases

  1. 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.’ ”

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Contemporary Cars, Inc.

    667 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 2012)   Cited 10 times

    Goya Foods of Fla., 525 F.3d 1117, 1127 n. 13 (11th Cir.2008); Ala. Roofing & Metal Co. v. NLRB, 331 F.2d 965, 967 (5th Cir.1964) ; N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp. v. NLRB, 649 F.3d 723, 733 (D.C.Cir.2011). In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981, as well as all decisions by a Unit B panel of the former Fifth Circuit, Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33, 34 (11th Cir.1982).

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Legacy Health Sys.

    662 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 10 times
    Granting the NLRB's application for enforcement when a three-member panel adopted an order issued by a prior two member panel for the reasons set forth in the two member panel's decision

    We hold that, notwithstanding the Board's petition for enforcement only two days after its decision, the statutory bar to considering Legacy Health's objection holds firm. While it is true that, once the Board applies for enforcement, this court obtains jurisdiction over the case, it is also true that the Board retains concurrent jurisdiction until the record is filed. See 29 U.S.C. § 160(e); see also N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp. v. NLRB, 649 F.3d 723, 733 (D.C.Cir.2011). We shared concurrent jurisdiction with the Board from August 11, 2010, when the Board filed its application for enforcement, through September 17, 2010, when the Board filed its certified list of the contents of the record with this court.

  4. 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.

  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. 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.

  7. S. New Eng. Tel. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    793 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2015)   Cited 4 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Invoking t-shirt's “straightforward” message and employer's consequently reasonable belief as to the impact of that message on customer relations

    We review the Board's application of the law to the facts for reasonableness. See New York & Presbyterian Hospital v. NLRB, 649 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C.Cir.2011). The “special circumstances” exception to Section 7 is designed “to balance the potentially conflicting interests of an employee's right to display union insignia and an employer's right to limit or prohibit such display.”

  8. 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."

  9. 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.

  10. 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."