These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: N.L.R.B. v. Baptist Hospital, Inc.: union solicitation in health care institutions.
    Author: Shanin DB.
    Journal: Am J Law Med; 1980; 6(1):105-23. PubMed ID: 7435505.
    Abstract:
    In 1974, Congress passed the Health Care Amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, thus bringing nonprofit health care institutions within the purview of the Act and within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. Since the passage of these Amendments, the Board consistently has held that hospital no-solicitation rules prohibiting employees from engaging in union organizational activities on hospital premises in other than immediate, patient-care areas are presumptively invalid. In N.L.R.B. v. Baptist Hospital Inc., 442 U.S. 773 (1979), however, the U.S. Supreme Court questioned the rationality of the Board's presumption, although the Court did not specifically overrule the presumption itself. By examing the special interests arising in the hospital setting, as well as the legislative intent behind the Health Care Amendments, this Note evaluates the Board's presumption in light of the four Supreme Court opinions in Baptist Hospital. The Note concludes that the Board's presumption--that hospital non-solicitation rules are invalid in all areas of a hospital except for those areas directly involved in immediate patient care--is rational and reasonable (1) because it properly balances the interests of the hospital, of the employees, and of the patients, and (2) because it is consistent with the legislative intent behind passage of the Health Care Amendments. In addition, this Note contends that the Board has expanded its "immediate patient-care area" standard in an effoft to address the Supreme Court's concern in Baptist Hospital that the Board's balancing of interests had weighted the patients' well-being too lightly.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]