National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. Children's Hospital of Michigan, Henry Ford Health Systems,and Mount Clemens General Hospital, Respondents, 32 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 32 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 1994) July 20, 1994

Before: KEITH AND Batchelder, Circuit Judges; and CHURCHILL, Senior District Judge.* 

JUDGMENT

The above consolidated case came on to be heard upon applications of the National Labor Relations Board for the enforcement of certain orders issued by it against the Respondent, Children's Hospital of Michigan, Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, on March 28, 1991; Henry Ford Health Systems, Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, on June 10, 1991; and Mount Clemens General Hospital, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, on December 31, 1991. The Court heard argument of respective counsel on March 2, 1993, and has considered the briefs and transcript of record filed in this consolidated cause. On October 8, 1993, the Court, being fully advised in the premises, handed down its opinion affirming the Board's finding that the Michigan Association of Police (MAP) is not disqualified from certification based on its representation of non-guards in the public sector, but remanding the case to the Board to consider newly discovered evidence proffered by the Respondent Hospitals and to reconsider its ruling that MAP is not disqualified in light of this newly discovered evidence, including the inclusion, at the time of the certification of MAP as the representative for the hospital units, of non-guards in the Detroit Medical Center unit. In conformity therewith, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by the Court that the consolidated case be and it is hereby remanded to the Board for further proceedings in accordance with the Court's opinion.

 *

The Honorable James P. Churchill, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.