begin, we address the shortcomings of the ALJ’s opinion — analysis that was expressly adopted by the Board. As noted earlier, the ALJ himself invoked the Otis II “turns upon” standard to dispose of the present case. And yet at a most basic level, the ALJ’s opinion reflects inadequate attention to the critical inquiry posed by this aspect of the Otis II approach. In the past, the Board has generally applied the “turns upon” test by ascertaining the basis upon which the relevant decisionmakers arrived at their decision. In Otis II itself, the plurality focused on Otis’ decision, “[g]ood or bad,” grounded in the company’s belief that its technology was dated, its product was not competitive, etc. 269 N.L.R.B. at 892 & n. 3. See also Connecticut Color, Inc., 288 N.L.R.B. No. 81, 3 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Metropolitan Teletronics Corp., 279 N.L.R.B.
holding that the statute is mandatory holding that the number of rooms that housekeepers must clean is a mandatory subject of bargaining holding that a transfer of work was a mandatory subject of bargaining because the motivation for the shift was to cut labor costs holding that giving the work of a bargainingunit sergeant to civilians in the revamping of communications center was a mandatory subject of bargaining holding that a fiveminute change in employee starting time is a mandatory subject of bargaining