Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2025-06-27
29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: 2025 review of Board finding of surface bargaining based on combined no-strike, arbitration-elimination and other proposals.; result: claimant-won; claim: (a)
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
The source IR is a flattened PDF with page numbers inside the canonical text. Quotes are exact contiguous spans; this file does not recast the proposals as automatic illegality or resolve every remedy issue.
Result is from the perspective of the General Counsel or charging party asserting the employer unfair labor practice, not from the employer-petitioner’s appellate position.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 17
| Case | Covered employer | Covered employee and applicable retained status | Section 7 protected rights | Interference, restraint or coercion | Noncoercive expression under §8(c) | Narrow insignia-restriction justification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District Hospital Partners, L.P. v. NLRB — 141 F.4th 1279 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2025 (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 17
| Case | Domination, interference or support of a labor organization | Working-hours conference proviso | Conditional building-and-construction agreement allowance | Employment discrimination | Union-related discriminatory motivation | Same action absent unlawful motive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District Hospital Partners, L.P. v. NLRB — 141 F.4th 1279 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2025 (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–17 of 17
| Case | Conditional union-security proviso | Filed charges or given testimony | Discharge or other discrimination for Board participation | Employees collective-bargaining representative | Alternative breaches of applicable collective-bargaining duties |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District Hospital Partners, L.P. v. NLRB — 141 F.4th 1279 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2025 (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| District Hospital Partners, L.P. v. NLRB — 141 F.4th 1279 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Alternative breaches of applicable collective-bargaining duties | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a); theory: combined bargaining proposals; subject: theory=combined bargaining proposals The positive parent refusal-to-bargain holding records unlawful surface bargaining, not compliance with the good-faith duty. The court evaluates the combination and persistence of proposals, not a per-se obligation to concede a particular term. | no-strike-without-binding-arbitration | The Hospital’s proposal upset that balance by pairing a broad no-strike clause with the elimination of binding arbitration.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_141.jsonl#/f4th/141/1279; Unicode character offsets [30950:31073] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e44686ef4aa29e9c6f5a8b2c7f456449411d6662b30eabe86fe116c8fc807ba9.After introducing the arbitration-eliminating proposal on March 29, 2017, the Hospital revised its discipline proposal on May 25 to align with a mediation-only model.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_141.jsonl#/f4th/141/1279; Unicode character offsets [32728:32894] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e44686ef4aa29e9c6f5a8b2c7f456449411d6662b30eabe86fe116c8fc807ba9.Despite repeated objections from the Union, the Hospital maintained that position through June 7, 2018.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_141.jsonl#/f4th/141/1279; Unicode character offsets [32907:33010] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e44686ef4aa29e9c6f5a8b2c7f456449411d6662b30eabe86fe116c8fc807ba9.Overall, we uphold the Board’s determinations that the Hospital’s conduct amounted to bad faith surface bargaining in violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the NLRA.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_141.jsonl#/f4th/141/1279; Unicode character offsets [37446:37618] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e44686ef4aa29e9c6f5a8b2c7f456449411d6662b30eabe86fe116c8fc807ba9. |