National Labor Relations Act § 7

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

• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
  157 F.2d 486· 8th Cir.· 1946-10-23 ·cited 92×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were not supported by substantial evidence, particularly concerning employee discharges and the manager's speech.
• Boire v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  479 F.2d 778· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-08 ·cited 91×
  A temporary injunction under § 10(j) of the NLRA is appropriate when there is reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices have occurred and equitable relief is necessary to preserve the Board's jurisdiction and the status quo, even if the legal theories are novel.
• Mushroom Transp. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  330 F.2d 683· 3d Cir.· 1964-04-24 ·cited 72×
  The court held that an employee's conversations with fellow workers, even if related to employment interests, do not constitute protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the Act unless they are engaged in with the object of initiating or inducing group action.
• Hedstrom Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  558 F.2d 1137· 3d Cir.· 1977-07-05 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the company's Section 8(a)(1) violations were not pervasive enough to justify a bargaining order, and that the company did not violate Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to bargain with a union that did not represent a majority at the time of the demand.
• Int'l Union of Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  289 F.2d 757· D.C. Cir.· 1960-06-30 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the Board cannot entertain an amendment to a complaint that the General Counsel opposes, but remanded the issue of a supervisor's statement for further proceedings.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kaiser Agric. Chems.
  473 F.2d 374· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-02 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order to cease and desist from unfair labor practices and to bargain collectively with the union was supported by substantial evidence and should be enforced.
• Hugh H. Wilson Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  414 F.2d 1345· 3d Cir.· 1969-07-03 ·cited 68×
  The discharged employees' expressions of dissatisfaction were not protected 'concerted activity' under the NLRA because they lacked the object of initiating or promoting group action, and the employer lacked knowledge of any concerted nature.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Tenn. Coach Co.
  191 F.2d 546· 6th Cir.· 1951-07-09 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the company did not commit an unfair labor practice by discharging Homer F. Fritts, as the discharge was justified by his conduct of threatening employees regarding union membership during working hours, and that certain statements by supervisory employees did
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Walton Mfg. Co.
  289 F.2d 177· 5th Cir.· 1961-03-17 ·cited 62×
  The court held that an employer's rule prohibiting solicitations on company property, even if framed as prohibiting 'outside business,' could be reasonably interpreted by employees to ban union solicitation, making it unlawful on its face. The court also held that announcing a ma
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Eagle Material Handling, Inc.
  558 F.2d 160· 3d Cir.· 1977-06-22 ·cited 60×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings of unfair labor practices and that the remedies imposed were within the Board's discretion, granting enforcement of the Board's orders.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Buddies Supermarkets, Inc.
  481 F.2d 714· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-25 ·cited 60×
  The court held that an employee's individual efforts to secure more favorable contract terms for himself, without evidence of intent to initiate or induce group action, do not constitute protected concerted activity under the NLRA. It also held that there was insufficient evidenc
• Edward Fields, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  325 F.2d 754· 2d Cir.· 1963-12-20 ·cited 60×
  The court held that while the employer committed unfair labor practices by interrogating employees and assisting in an anti-union petition, it did not violate the duty to bargain because it had a good-faith doubt as to the union's majority status.
• Clear Pine Mouldings, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  632 F.2d 721· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-25 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board correctly applied the law and its findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, affirming the Board's decision that Clear Pine violated the National Labor Relations Act through improper interrogation, reprimand, un
• First Lakewood Assocs. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  582 F.2d 416· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-09 ·cited 56×
  The court held that while the employer committed several unfair labor practices under § 8(a)(1), the extraordinary remedy of a bargaining order was not warranted due to insufficient evidence of a card majority at the time of demand and a lack of specific findings regarding the im
• Automated Bus. Sys. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  497 F.2d 262· 6th Cir.· 1974-05-23 ·cited 56×
  The court held that a finding of employer's good faith doubt does not equate to an actual loss of union majority, and the presumption of majority status should only be overcome by objective evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. N. Metal Co.
  440 F.2d 881· 3d Cir.· 1971-04-06 ·cited 56×
  The court held that an employee's efforts to enforce a collective bargaining agreement provision constitute 'concerted activity' per se under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Adams Dairy, Inc.
  350 F.2d 108· 8th Cir.· 1965-09-08 ·cited 56×
  The court held that Adams Dairy's decision to terminate its distribution business and sell products to independent contractors was not a mandatory subject of collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Schill Steel Prods., Inc.
  340 F.2d 568· 5th Cir.· 1965-01-11 ·cited 56×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the National Labor Relations Board's findings that Schill Steel Products violated the National Labor Relations Act by interrogating employees, threatening them with loss of benefits, discriminatorily discharging two employees for
• Serv-Air, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  395 F.2d 557· 10th Cir.· 1968-01-19 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the company's no-solicitation rule was not discriminatorily promulgated or enforced, but that its 'serious harm' notice was a threat in the 1964 context. The court affirmed the Board's findings regarding the lockout of striking employees and the firemen, the m
• Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  120 F.2d 641· D.C. Cir.· 1941-05-12 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order to cease unfair labor practices, including dominating employee representation plans and interfering with union rights, was valid and enforceable against both the parent corporation and its subsidiary.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Columbia Univ.
  541 F.2d 922· 2d Cir.· 1976-08-25 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the Board's order was unenforceable because the Board failed to articulate a clear and sufficient rationale for applying N.L.R.B. v. Weingarten, Inc. to the facts of the case.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Styletek
  520 F.2d 275· 1st Cir.· 1975-08-06 ·cited 48×
  The court held that while the company's reorganization efforts and wage plan development had legitimate business purposes, the timing of the announcement of actual wage benefits two weeks before an election supported the Board's finding of an unfair labor practice under Section 8
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Southland Paint Co., Inc.
  394 F.2d 717· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-08 ·cited 48×
  The court held that while the employer committed unfair labor practices under sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3), substantial evidence did not support the Board's finding of majority status based on authorization cards, thus the mandatory bargaining order was not enforced.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Capitol Fish Co.
  294 F.2d 868· 5th Cir.· 1961-09-27 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the exclusion of the investigating attorney's testimony was an error because it was material, not privileged, and the agency cannot unilaterally determine privilege.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Somerset Classics, Inc.
  193 F.2d 613· 2d Cir.· 1952-01-14 ·cited 48×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the National Labor Relations Board's findings that the respondents engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain with a union and discriminating against union employees. The court also found that the companies were mut
• Elastic Stop Nut Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  142 F.2d 371· 8th Cir.· 1944-05-01 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence, including foreman's statements and employer's assistance to an unaffiliated union.
• Carpenters' Local Union NO. 1478 v. Stevens
  743 F.2d 1271· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-01 ·cited 47×
  The court held that an arbitrator's award drawing its essence from a collective bargaining agreement should be affirmed.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Triumph Curing Ctr. & M. F. Lee
  571 F.2d 462· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-02 ·cited 46×
  The court should remand the issue of the bargaining order to the Board for findings on union violence and its coercive effect on employees' free choice.
• Holodnak v. Avco Corp.
  514 F.2d 285· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-18 ·cited 46×
  The court held that while the government's entanglement with Avco's operations warranted treating Avco's actions as governmental for First Amendment purposes, punitive damages are not available against a private party in this sui generis situation, even for a willful violation of
• J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  417 F.2d 533· 5th Cir.· 1969-10-03 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's enhanced remedies, including mailing notices to employees, reading notices aloud, granting union access to bulletin boards, and providing employee lists, were appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act given the empl
• Gen. Elec. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  412 F.2d 512· 2d Cir.· 1969-06-09 ·cited 46×
  An employer may refuse to bargain with a union committee that includes members of other unions during preliminary, voluntary discussions, but cannot refuse to bargain with such a committee during mandatory bargaining periods absent a showing of bad faith or ulterior motive.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. The William J. Burns Int'l Detective Agency, Inc.
  346 F.2d 897· 8th Cir.· 1965-06-18 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the employer's complete discontinuation of its Omaha operations for economic reasons, without anti-union motivation, did not constitute an unfair labor practice under § 8(a)(5) for failure to bargain over the contract termination. However, certain § 8(a)(1) vi
• Fort Smith Broad. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  341 F.2d 874· 8th Cir.· 1965-03-04 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the employer did not violate the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to recognize the union or by suspending and discharging an employee, as the evidence did not support the Board's findings of unlawful discrimination or coercion.
• Coppus Eng'g Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  240 F.2d 564· 1st Cir.· 1957-01-16 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the Board's order requiring the company to disestablish the Shop Committee should not be enforced due to lack of evidence of company domination or interference.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gotham Shoe Mfg. Co., Inc.
  359 F.2d 684· 2d Cir.· 1966-01-14 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices and its order to bargain were supported by substantial evidence and were enforceable.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
  276 F.2d 865· 7th Cir.· 1960-04-06 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the Board did not err in determining the appropriateness of the craft bargaining unit, conducting the election, or refusing to consider the disaffiliation and no-raiding agreement defenses.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Rockwell Mfg. Co. (du Bois Division)
  271 F.2d 109· 3d Cir.· 1959-10-08 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order to cease enforcing a no-distribution rule on company parking lots and its finding of unfair labor practices based on supervisory employees' interrogations of employees were not supported by substantial evidence and we
• Behring Int'l, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  675 F.2d 83· 3d Cir.· 1982-04-07 ·cited 42×
  The National Labor Relations Board's Wright Line rule improperly shifts the burden of persuasion to the employer in dual-motive discharge cases, contrary to statutory provisions requiring the General Counsel to prove unfair labor practices.
• Peoples Serv. Drug Stores, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  375 F.2d 551· 6th Cir.· 1967-04-05 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while the employer committed unfair labor practices, its doubt regarding the union's majority status was made in good faith, thus reversing the Board's order to bargain.
• Local 57, Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  374 F.2d 295· D.C. Cir.· 1967-01-11 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board has broad discretion to fashion remedies for unfair labor practices, and its order requiring an employer to bargain with a union, even without re-establishing majority support among new employees, was within that discretion.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Power Equip. Co.
  313 F.2d 438· 6th Cir.· 1963-02-15 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the employer's interrogation of an employee about union activities was not an unfair labor practice, but ordering employees to remove union insignia shirts without justification was an unfair labor practice.
• Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  230 F.2d 357· 7th Cir.· 1956-03-02 ·cited 42×
  The court held that suspending employees for wearing 'Scab' buttons was not a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because the buttons' inherent disruptive nature justified the employer's action.
• Local 900, Int'l Union OF Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  727 F.2d 1184· D.C. Cir.· 1984-02-10 ·cited 40×
  The court upheld the National Labor Relations Board's new principle that superseniority for layoff and recall is lawful only for union officers involved in on-the-job contract administration, and that such rights are not waivable.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Essex Wire Corp.
  245 F.2d 589· 9th Cir.· 1957-02-28 ·cited 40×
  The court held that an employer's demand for union membership cards, prohibition of campaigning during rest periods, and discriminatory enforcement of a no-button policy constitute unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Trw-United Greenfield Division v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  637 F.2d 410· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-20 ·cited 39×
  The dissenting judge holds that the evidence does not support the Board's findings of unfair labor practices sufficient to set aside an election.
• Monongahela Power Co. v. Local NO. 2332 Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers
  484 F.2d 1209· 4th Cir.· 1973-10-02 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Boys Markets exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act applies, allowing injunctive relief to enforce arbitration of a work stoppage that violates a no-strike clause in a collective bargaining agreement.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. L. Brandeis & Sons
  145 F.2d 556· 8th Cir.· 1944-11-06 ·cited 37×
  The court held that an employer has a right to disseminate facts and express opinions on labor matters, even if it expresses hostility to a union, as long as it does not violate the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Linda JO Shoe Co.
  307 F.2d 355· 5th Cir.· 1962-08-07 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a company rule prohibiting employee solicitation and literature distribution on company premises during non-working time is unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act unless special circumstances justify it. The court also held that discharging an employe
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Harbison-Fischer Mfg. Co.
  304 F.2d 738· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-20 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the employer's interrogations of employees regarding their union activities constituted unlawful interference, restraint, and coercion under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Poole Foundry & Mach. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  192 F.2d 740· 4th Cir.· 1951-11-14 ·cited 36×
  A settlement agreement under the National Labor Relations Act should not be construed as an admission of guilt by the employer, especially when the Board failed to issue a complaint after investigation.