/f4th/141/1279

Coverage and quality

1 annotation blocks; 1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases with counted merits instances; 0 excluded blocks.

Frozen DB: 165 case–law contexts. Source tree: 300 CASE files. This snapshot does not imply full current repository coverage.

Legal review status: unavailable to this view.

Counting rules and source integrity

Counted instances require applied citation role, merits scope, and a reached holding. Procedural, not-reached, comparator, and other context remains visible but is excluded from counts.

Source hash and exact-offset checks verify quotation integrity only; they do not establish legal correctness, model confidence, exhaustive coverage, or approval. Zero means no counted annotation in this snapshot.

Database snapshot SHA-256: b8882353247abdd6e20d4e22922c166d68ccb8e2da50e13e0162a35c316318f8. 3301 source quotations verified across this snapshot.

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2025-06-27

Original case on neochart.com

Case and law context

29 U.S.C. § 158(a)

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)

Instances and excluded annotation blocks

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
Case	Element	Holding and scope	Variant	Exact source quotations
/f4th/141/1279 — Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2025	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.	surface-bargaining/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`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) 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`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) 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`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) 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`. Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations recorded from this case