{"title":"《总体性》——对与错:总体性三部曲。","authors":"P C Lederer","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Totality, or the concept that all evidence that may bear on a given case should be considered together in issuing a decision, has been applied inconsistently by the National Labor Relations Board, particularly with regard to three types of cases: \"good faith doubt\" cases, those involving employer statements made during a union election campaign, and employee discharge cases. In the following article, the author examines cases that demonstrate how the Board has vacillated in its application of the totality principle.</p>","PeriodicalId":79590,"journal":{"name":"Employee relations law journal","volume":"6 4","pages":"620-34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1981-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"Totality\\\"--right or wrong: the totality trilogy.\",\"authors\":\"P C Lederer\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Totality, or the concept that all evidence that may bear on a given case should be considered together in issuing a decision, has been applied inconsistently by the National Labor Relations Board, particularly with regard to three types of cases: \\\"good faith doubt\\\" cases, those involving employer statements made during a union election campaign, and employee discharge cases. In the following article, the author examines cases that demonstrate how the Board has vacillated in its application of the totality principle.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79590,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Employee relations law journal\",\"volume\":\"6 4\",\"pages\":\"620-34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1981-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Employee relations law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Employee relations law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Totality, or the concept that all evidence that may bear on a given case should be considered together in issuing a decision, has been applied inconsistently by the National Labor Relations Board, particularly with regard to three types of cases: "good faith doubt" cases, those involving employer statements made during a union election campaign, and employee discharge cases. In the following article, the author examines cases that demonstrate how the Board has vacillated in its application of the totality principle.