Skip to main content

McKenzie-Willamette Regional Medical Center Associates, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board

D.C. CircuitNovember 22, 2016No. No. 15-1125 Consolidated with 15-1171Cited 1 time
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Millett, Randolph, Srinivasan
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The D.C. Circuit denied the employer's petition for review and granted the NLRB's cross-petition for enforcement. The court upheld the Board's finding that McKenzie-Willamette violated the NLRA by failing to provide requested information during collective bargaining, rejecting the employer's procedural challenges to the Regional Director's appointment.

What This Ruling Means

# Court Ruling Summary: McKenzie-Willamette Regional Medical Center Associates, LLC ## What Happened McKenzie-Willamette Regional Medical Center refused to provide information that union representatives requested during contract negotiations. The employer claimed there were problems with how the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) official handling the case was appointed, hoping to avoid the underlying dispute about sharing information. ## What the Court Decided The federal appeals court rejected the employer's argument and sided with the NLRB. The court confirmed that McKenzie-Willamette violated labor law by refusing to provide the requested information during bargaining negotiations. The employer had to comply with the NLRB's decision. ## Why This Matters for Workers This ruling strengthens workers' collective bargaining rights. It means employers cannot simply withhold information from unions during contract talks, even if they disagree with technicalities about how the case is being handled. When workers have a union, they have the right to access relevant information needed for fair negotiations—employers cannot hide behind procedural complaints to avoid this obligation.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.