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. Monroe Tube Co., Inc.
  545 F.2d 1320· 2d Cir.· 1976-11-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the employer's actions in encouraging employees to withdraw union authorization cards and interrogating them about union activities did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA due to a lack of substantial evidence of coercion. The court also declined to review
• Sperry Sys. Mgmt. Div. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  492 F.2d 63· 2d Cir.· 1974-02-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Union's attempt to enforce an arbitration award requiring the Company to apply terms of a New York City collective bargaining agreement to its California employees constituted an unfair labor practice, as it was a covert attempt to represent employees outs
• Sweeney & Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  437 F.2d 1127· 5th Cir.· 1971-01-25 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Board's finding that employee Hodges was a supervisor lacked substantial evidence, and thus his statements were not attributable to management. The court also found substantial evidence supported the Board's findings of unlawful interrogation and implied p
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Union Carbide Corp.
  440 F.2d 54· 4th Cir.· 1971-01-05 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge would not enforce the Board's order for backpay and reinstatement.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Trw-Semiconductors, Inc.
  385 F.2d 753· 9th Cir.· 1967-11-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the employer's pre-election propaganda, which contained predictions of potential negative consequences of unionization, was protected speech under Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act and did not constitute an unfair labor practice.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Poultry Enters., Inc.
  207 F.2d 522· 5th Cir.· 1953-11-04 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order to bargain is enforceable because the employer's refusal was not based on good faith doubt and the employer cannot benefit from its own unfair labor practices.
• Bon-R Reproductions, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  309 F.2d 898· 2d Cir.· 1962-11-05 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the Board's finding that Scrima's discharge was an unfair labor practice was not supported by substantial evidence when certain erroneous bases for the finding were removed.
• Anchortank, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  618 F.2d 1153· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-13 ·cited 32×
  An employee has a right to union representation at an investigatory interview after a union wins a challenged election, but not at an interview solely to deliver a previously made disciplinary decision.
• Pontiac v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  620 F.2d 122· 6th Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that an employer cannot be found to have committed an unfair labor practice by discharging an employee for protected activity unless the employer knew the activity was protected and concerted in nature. The case is remanded for findings on this knowledge.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Disposables
  494 F.2d 588· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board did not exceed its authority in issuing a complaint based on charges that were closely related to the original union's unfair labor practice charge, and that the employer suffered no prejudice from the denial of discovery.
• King Radio Corp., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  398 F.2d 14· 10th Cir.· 1968-07-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the employer's actions, including interrogating employees, promulgating a discriminatory no-solicitation rule, unilaterally changing working conditions, and retaliating against supervisors for testifying, constituted unfair labor practices under the National L
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. F. H. McGRAW & Co.
  206 F.2d 635· 6th Cir.· 1953-06-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while the company engaged in unfair labor practices by enforcing illegal hiring agreements and interrogating employees about union affiliation at the Paducah project, the order should be modified to apply only to that project due to lack of evidence of similar
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United States Cold Storage Corp.
  203 F.2d 924· 5th Cir.· 1953-04-23 ·cited 32×
  The court's majority affirmed the board's order, finding the company committed an unfair labor practice. The dissenting judge disagreed with this finding.
• Glaziers & Glassworkers Local Union # 767 v. Custom Auto Glass Distribs.
  689 F.2d 1339· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that employers are precluded from asserting, as a defense to a section 301 action, that the union lacked majority status at the time of the collective bargaining agreement's execution, due to the preemption of this issue under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Retail Store Emps. Union, Local 876, Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n, AFL-CIO
  570 F.2d 586· 6th Cir.· 1978-01-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that discharging an employee for refusing to testify for the employer in an unfair labor practice proceeding, due to lack of personal knowledge, violates Section 8(a)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act.
• Roberts v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  350 F.2d 427· D.C. Cir.· 1965-07-21 ·cited 30×
  A labor union's imposition of a fine on a member for filing unfair labor practice charges with the Board, or for failing to exhaust internal union remedies before filing, constitutes an unfair labor practice under Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Am. MFG. Co., Inc.
  132 F.2d 740· 5th Cir.· 1943-01-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that respondents were in contempt of a prior decree for issuing notices that interfered with employees' rights to self-organization, regardless of whether the notices actually had that effect.
• W. Cartridge Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  134 F.2d 240· 7th Cir.· 1943-03-01 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices, including company domination of a union and discriminatory discharge, were supported by substantial evidence and that the Board's order was valid.
• Lumber Prod. Indus. Workers Local # 1054 v. W. Coast Indus. Relations Ass'n, Inc.
  775 F.2d 1042· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the LMRA and that the union's state law tort claim was preempted by the NLRA.
• W-I Canteen Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  606 F.2d 738· 7th Cir.· 1979-09-25 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the no-strike clause did not clearly and unmistakably waive the employees' right to engage in a sympathy strike.
• N. Am. Rockwell Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  389 F.2d 866· 10th Cir.· 1968-02-14 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence, except for the restriction of Carl White's phone privileges, and that procedural errors did not invalidate the Board's order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sunbeam Lighting Co., Inc.
  318 F.2d 661· 7th Cir.· 1963-05-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish that a majority of employees struck, thus their conduct did not signify rejection of the employer's final offer.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sec. Plating Co., Inc.
  356 F.2d 725· 9th Cir.· 1966-02-15 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the National Labor Relations Board's order finding Security Plating Company committed unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain and discriminatorily discharging employees.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Katz
  701 F.2d 703· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the employer presented a prima facie case of election misconduct, and the Board erred in failing to conduct further investigation or a hearing.
• Spring City Knitting Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  647 F.2d 1011· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board did not abuse its discretion in determining that separate bargaining units for two plants were appropriate and in overruling objections to the election due to alleged union misconduct.
• Trs. OF Boston Univ. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  548 F.2d 391· 1st Cir.· 1977-01-28 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the National Labor Relations Board's order finding that Boston University violated the National Labor Relations Act by discharging an employee, and granted enforcement of the Board's reinstatement order.
• The Contract Knitter, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  545 F.2d 967· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board reasonably determined that union campaign literature containing minor misrepresentations about pay did not significantly impact the election outcome, and thus, the employer's refusal to bargain was unlawful.
• Associated Home Builders OF the Greater E. BAY, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  352 F.2d 745· 9th Cir.· 1965-10-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Board erred in failing to consider whether the unions' unilateral imposition of production quotas and fines constituted a failure to bargain collectively under §§ 8(b)(3) and 8(d) of the Act, even though these sections were not explicitly cited in the comp
• Armco Steel Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  344 F.2d 621· 6th Cir.· 1965-04-27 ·cited 26×
  A collective bargaining agreement provision prohibiting employee distribution of literature on company property is valid, even when enforced against distribution of rival union literature, as employees can waive such rights through their bargaining representative.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. NEW England Tank Indus., Inc.
  302 F.2d 273· 1st Cir.· 1962-04-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that the respondent discriminatorily refused to hire former employees due to union membership, and that three employees who accepted offers but refused to report due to the respondent's actions were unfair lab
• Drug Package, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  570 F.2d 1340· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while a prospective bargaining order for 8(a)(1) violations was appropriate, a retroactive bargaining order and reinstatement based on an 8(a)(5) violation were not, as the 8(a)(5) charge was not properly litigated and the strike was not an unfair labor practi
• Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  491 F.2d 388· 3d Cir.· 1974-01-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the casual drivers' unauthorized walkout, which violated the collective bargaining agreement's no-strike clause, was not protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, and therefore the company's discharge of the participants
• Colecraft Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  385 F.2d 998· 2d Cir.· 1967-11-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that an employer cannot refuse to bargain under section 8(a)(5) if the union's recognition request is for too large a unit, even by one employee. The court also reversed the Board's findings regarding coercive effect of supervisor's statements under section 8(a)(1)
• The J. S. Dillon & Sons Stores Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  338 F.2d 395· 10th Cir.· 1964-11-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were not supported by substantial evidence. The court vacated the Board's order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gate City Cotton Mills
  167 F.2d 647· 5th Cir.· 1948-04-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the employer's actions, including surveillance and harassment of an employee involved in union activities, constituted unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Am. Smelting & Ref. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  126 F.2d 680· 8th Cir.· 1942-03-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Board's findings of discriminatory layoff and delayed reemployment for Behney and Johnson were not supported by substantial evidence, but the order to cease dominating the employee association was sustained.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pac. GAS & Elec. Co.
  118 F.2d 780· 9th Cir.· 1941-03-28 ·cited 24×
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Boss MFG. Co.
  118 F.2d 187· 7th Cir.· 1941-03-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the respondent's conduct constituted a refusal to bargain collectively, demonstrating a lack of good faith and a fixed intention not to agree.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Homemaker Shops, Inc.
  724 F.2d 535· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Board cannot find unlawful domination of a labor committee when the complaint and General Counsel at the hearing only alleged unlawful assistance, as this deprives the employer of proper notice and due process. Furthermore, the Board's findings of dominati
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Marion Rohr Corp., Inc.
  714 F.2d 228· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the employer committed unfair labor practices, the Board failed to provide adequate justification for a retroactive bargaining order, especially considering employee turnover and the passage of time.
• Pay'n Save Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  641 F.2d 697· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Pay'n Save violated the National Labor Relations Act by prohibiting union buttons and discharging employees for wearing them, and that a bargaining order was warranted.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Floridan Hotel OF Tampa, Inc.
  318 F.2d 545· 5th Cir.· 1963-06-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that management's prohibition of union badges by customer-facing employees was not violative of the Act, as management has a right to manage its business and avoid potential customer irritation.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Donald E. Hernly, Inc.
  613 F.2d 457· 2d Cir.· 1980-01-14 ·cited 20×
  The court denied the National Labor Relations Board's petition for enforcement, finding its decision unsupported by substantial evidence on the record.
• Am. Cyanamid Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  592 F.2d 356· 7th Cir.· 1979-02-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Company committed unfair labor practices by unilaterally contracting out unit work without bargaining and by refusing to reinstate striking employees after an unconditional offer to return to work.
• Image Carrier Corp. v. Beame
  567 F.2d 1197· 2d Cir.· 1977-12-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the City's restrictive bidding policy, requiring unionized printers, was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest and thus violated equal protection principles.
• Heavenly Valley SKI Area v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  552 F.2d 269· 9th Cir.· 1977-01-19 ·cited 20×
• Kesner v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  532 F.2d 1169· 7th Cir.· 1976-04-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction under § 10(f) to review serious legal objections that the NLRB has exceeded its authority, and that the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to fully advocate the employee's grievance, but affirmed the Board's denial of
• Trico Prods. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  489 F.2d 347· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while Trico's supervisors' threats constituted coercion, the petition merely accelerated layoffs that would have occurred due to economic conditions, and thus, reinstatement and full back pay were not warranted.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. C & I AIR Conditioning, Inc.
  486 F.2d 977· 9th Cir.· 1973-10-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that an employee's isolated complaint about unsafe working conditions, made without reference to a collective bargaining agreement and not for the mutual aid of other employees, does not constitute protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the NLRA.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 485, Int'l Union OF Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, AFL-CIO
  454 F.2d 17· 2d Cir.· 1972-01-12 ·cited 20×
  The court enforced the Board's original order requiring the union to process the grievance but declined to enforce the supplemental order holding the union liable for all back pay.