Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019-03-12
29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: rule-announced; posture: petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of an NLRB order finding a (technical, admitted) § 8(a)(5) refusal to bargain, brought to test the certification of a non-tenure-track faculty unit; petition granted in part, enforcement denied, remanded for the Board to redetermine managerial status under the correct reading of Yeshiva; result: remanded; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
None recorded
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univ. of S. Cal. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 918 F.3d 126 (2019) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/merits | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univ. of S. Cal. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 918 F.3d 126 (2019) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univ. of S. Cal. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 918 F.3d 126 (2019) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univ. of S. Cal. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 918 F.3d 126 (2019) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 — not reached (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Covered employee and applicable retained status | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits party: University of Southern California; count: bargaining unit certification (Roski School non-tenure-track faculty); subject: party=University of Southern California; count=bargaining unit certification (Roski School non-tenure-track faculty) The court fixes the test for when a faculty subgroup is "managerial" (and so outside the Act's coverage): the Board's subgroup majority status rule conflicts with Yeshiva, its "effective control" standard does not. It does not decide whether the Roski non-tenure-track faculty are covered employees; that goes back to the Board. The refusal to bargain itself was admitted by USC as the vehicle for testing the certification; the court makes no § 8(a)(5) merits ruling and no block is recorded for it. | managerial-employee exclusion of a university faculty subgroup (non-tenure-track faculty holding a minority of seats on governance committees) | Put another way, the question the Board must ask is not a numerical one-does the subgroup seeking recognition comprise a majority of a committee-but rather a broader, structural one: has the university included the subgroup in a faculty body vested with managerial responsibilities?Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0126-01; Unicode character offsets [38863:39145] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d583554e61efa1a96a8ede88d054261881d1bc9f19cf568c23c9a4dcf54f7ae9.We see nothing in the Board's two-part standard for "effective" control that runs afoul of Yeshiva .Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0126-01; Unicode character offsets [49220:49320] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d583554e61efa1a96a8ede88d054261881d1bc9f19cf568c23c9a4dcf54f7ae9.But given our conclusion that the Board's subgroup majority status rule runs afoul of Yeshiva , and because we are uncertain whether the Board would have reached the same conclusion absent that rule, we think it best to leave these arguments unaddressed and to instead give the Board an opportunity to reconsider the case afresh under the proper legal standard.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0126-01; Unicode character offsets [54522:54883] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d583554e61efa1a96a8ede88d054261881d1bc9f19cf568c23c9a4dcf54f7ae9. |