sorts of factors that courts have long charged the Board with balancing. We conclude that the broad legal views outlined in Otis II are reasonably defensible approaches for determining when plant re-locations are mandatory bargaining subjects under the NLRA. IV. Analysis of the Present Case Having determined that Otis II is not fatally flawed on its face, our inquiry is not over. It remains to determine whether the Otis standard, acceptable in its broad outlines, has been properly applied to the particular facts of the case before us. Despite the deference we owe the Board, for reasons that follow, we conclude that its decision in this case falls short of the standards of reasoned decisionmaking that we customarily require in judicial review. A. The Findings of the ALJ 7, 958 (1986) (<HOLDING>); DeSoto, Inc., 278 N.L.R.B. 788, 789 (1986)
holding that court did not prejudice defendant by limiting his counsel to preestablished limitations on inter alia the scope of crossexamination holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying inter alia costs for internal copying of documents by prevailing defendants counsel produced for discovery holding inter alia that expert testimony was not required to prove damages for emotional distress in an abuse of process claim holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted holding that a decision to move did not turn upon labor costs but rather was motivated by inter alia a foreclosure action