Labor Dispute Injunctions

19 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Napa Pittsburgh, Inc. v. Auto. Chauffeurs
  502 F.2d 321· 3d Cir.· 1974-08-08 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the determination of whether a picket line was primary, thus allowing employees to refuse to cross it under the collective bargaining agreement, was an arbitrable dispute, and a preliminary injunction was proper pending arbitration.
• Inland Steel Co. v. Local Union NO. 1545
  505 F.2d 293· 7th Cir.· 1974-10-22 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the injunctions did not conflict with the Norris-LaGuardia Act, as the dispute over honoring picket lines was arbitrable.
• Scott v. Moore
  680 F.2d 979· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-01 ·cited 28×
• Truck Drivers Local Union NO. 807 v. The Bohack Corp.
  541 F.2d 312· 2d Cir.· 1976-08-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction against the union's picketing without ordering the employer to arbitrate, and that bankruptcy court approval is required for arbitration of disputes under a collective bargaining agreement.
• Scott v. Moore
  640 F.2d 708· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not divest federal courts of jurisdiction to enjoin violent acts, even in a labor dispute, and that 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) provides a remedy for private conspiracies motivated by nonracial, class-based animus that deprive individuals
• Camping Constr. Co. v. Dist. Council OF Iron Workers
  915 F.2d 1333· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while termination disputes under a prehire agreement are arbitrable, claims of repudiation of such agreements must be decided by a court, not an arbitrator. Furthermore, the Norris-LaGuardia Act restricts a court's power to issue injunctions staying labor arbi
• Donnelly Garment Co. v. Dubinsky
  154 F.2d 38· 8th Cir.· 1946-03-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue injunctions in labor disputes without specific findings required by the Norris-LaGuardia Act, including proof that public officers are unable or unwilling to provide adequate protection.
• PAN Am. World Airways, Inc. v. United Bhd. OF Carpenters & Joiners OF Am.
  324 F.2d 217· 9th Cir.· 1963-11-05 ·cited 16×
  The Railway Labor Act does not apply to employees of an air carrier whose work has no relation to air transportation.
• Aluminum Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Consol. Aluminum Corp.
  696 F.2d 437· 6th Cir.· 1982-12-22 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the union failed to demonstrate irreparable harm necessary to justify an injunction against the employer's job reclassification, and that the order to arbitrate was unnecessary as the employer was willing to arbitrate.
• Publishers' Ass'n OF NEW York City (on behalf of its member v. NEW York Mailers' Union No. SIX
  317 F.2d 624· 2d Cir.· 1963-05-20 ·cited 10×
  A district court order compelling arbitration is affirmed, but an order staying union action is reversed because it violates the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
• Gen. Elec. Co. v. Local Union 191
  413 F.2d 964· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the federal district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction and dissolving a state court injunction after removal of the case.
• Houston Insulation Contractors Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  339 F.2d 868· 5th Cir.· 1964-12-08 ·cited 7×
  The court granted a stay of the Board's order, finding sufficient merit to justify preserving the status quo pending final review.
• Schuck v. Gilmore Steel Corp.
  784 F.2d 947· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction to hear the case, but affirmed the dismissal for failure to state a claim because ERISA's exception for reversion of excess pension funds applied.
• Fed. Express Corp. v. Teamster Union
  617 F.2d 524· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act bars federal courts from enjoining peaceful picketing by a union when the employer is subject to the Railway Labor Act but no specific RLA procedures are violated by the union's conduct.
• The Boys Mkts., Inc. v. Retail Clerk's Union
  416 F.2d 368· 9th Cir.· 1969-09-26 ·cited 2×
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin a union strike that violates a no-strike clause, even if the strike is in furtherance of a labor dispute.
• Matson Plastering Co., Inc. v. Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons Int'l Ass'n, AFL-CIO
  633 F.2d 1307· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-12
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction against a strike when the underlying dispute concerns the interpretation of a no-strike clause, as per Buffalo Forge.
• Cimarron Coal Corp. v. Dist. NO. 23
  416 F.2d 844· 6th Cir.· 1969-10-02
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction because the conditions of Section 7(e) of the Norris-LaGuardia Act were not met, as there was no showing that public officers were unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.