The Brooklyn Hospital Center

29 Cited authorities

Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
440 U.S. 301 (1979) Cited 228 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union's request for employee aptitude tests was relevant to its claim, but employer's interest in preserving confidentiality was also legitimate, and disclosing the information only upon the employee's written consent was a reasonable accommodation
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 265 times 4 Legal Analyses
Approving "discovery-type standard"
Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.
356 U.S. 342 (1958) Cited 296 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."
N.L.R.B. v. Beverly Enterprises-Ma
174 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 1999) Cited 146 times
Finding failure to bargain to impasse prior to unilateral change constitutes an unfair labor practice under the Act
Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Rel. Board
170 F.2d 247 (7th Cir. 1949) Cited 156 times 2 Legal Analyses
Accepting the Board's conclusion "that the term `wages' . . . must be construed to include emoluments of value, like pension and insurance benefits, which may accrue to employees out of their employment relationship"
Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers U. v. N.L.R.B
463 F.2d 907 (D.C. Cir. 1972) Cited 61 times
In Ladies' Garment Workers, the Second Circuit stated that "no genuine bargaining... can be conducted where the decision has already been made and implemented."
Unite Here v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
546 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2008) Cited 5 times
Affirming the Board's decision in N. Am. Pipe Corp., 347 N.L.R.B. 836
N.L.R.B. v. Illinois-American Water Co.
933 F.2d 1368 (7th Cir. 1991) Cited 19 times 1 Legal Analyses
Explaining that accretion is "the addition of a relatively small group of employees to an existing bargaining unit where these additional employees have a sufficient community of interest with the unit employees and have no separate identity."
Frosty Land Foods v. Refrigerated Transport
613 F.2d 1344 (5th Cir. 1980) Cited 32 times
Finding that while no mention was made as to who had the burden of proof on a particular issue, the charge was sufficient to insure that the jury understood the issue so that no substantial rights of the parties were affected
Curtiss-Wright, Wright Aero. Div. v. N.L.R.B
347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965) Cited 55 times
Noting the Board has "considerable leeway in amplifying or expanding certain details not specifically set forth in the complaint if they accord with the general substance of the complaint"

The Brooklyn Hospital Center

29 Cited authorities

Holding that a union's request for employee aptitude tests was relevant to its claim, but employer's interest in preserving confidentiality was also legitimate, and disclosing the information only upon the employee's written consent was a reasonable accommodation

Approving "discovery-type standard"

Finding failure to bargain to impasse prior to unilateral change constitutes an unfair labor practice under the Act

Accepting the Board's conclusion "that the term `wages' . . . must be construed to include emoluments of value, like pension and insurance benefits, which may accrue to employees out of their employment relationship"

In Ladies' Garment Workers, the Second Circuit stated that "no genuine bargaining... can be conducted where the decision has already been made and implemented."

Affirming the Board's decision in N. Am. Pipe Corp., 347 N.L.R.B. 836

Explaining that accretion is "the addition of a relatively small group of employees to an existing bargaining unit where these additional employees have a sufficient community of interest with the unit employees and have no separate identity."

Finding that while no mention was made as to who had the burden of proof on a particular issue, the charge was sufficient to insure that the jury understood the issue so that no substantial rights of the parties were affected

Noting the Board has "considerable leeway in amplifying or expanding certain details not specifically set forth in the complaint if they accord with the general substance of the complaint"