National Labor Relations Act § 7

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

• Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen OF N. Am., Local NO. 364, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  435 F.2d 668· 9th Cir.· 1970-12-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings that the employer did not engage in unfair labor practices by discharging employees or interrogating them were supported by substantial evidence and that the union received a fair hearing.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Alamo Express, Inc.
  395 F.2d 481· 5th Cir.· 1968-06-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the company was in civil contempt for violating prior decrees by discriminating against union membership and interfering with employee rights, specifically through the actions of a terminal manager.
• G & W Elec. Specialty Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  360 F.2d 873· 7th Cir.· 1966-05-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that an employee's discharge for activities related to an employee credit union, which the employer did not control or influence, was not protected "concerted activity for mutual aid or protection" under Section 7 of the NLRA.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Somerville Buick, Inc.
  194 F.2d 56· 1st Cir.· 1952-01-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices, including discriminatory discharge and refusal to bargain, were supported by substantial evidence, and therefore granted the Board's petition for enforcement of its order.
• LAW v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  192 F.2d 236· 10th Cir.· 1951-10-25 ·cited 19×
  Proof of union compliance with filing requirements is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for the Board to proceed with a hearing.
• Commc'n Workers OF Am. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  784 F.2d 847· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-03 ·cited 18×
  The National Labor Relations Board was entitled to adopt its new policy (Taracorp) of not ordering reinstatement and back pay for Weingarten violations, even on a case remanded from court, as an exercise of its remedial discretion.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. NEW Columbus Nursing Home, Inc.
  720 F.2d 726· 1st Cir.· 1983-11-09 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the result, agreeing that the misrepresentation's materiality was not high enough to warrant overturning the election, even under a proper rule.
• Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Local NO. 355, Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  716 F.2d 1249· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-26 ·cited 18×
  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cannot enjoin a state-court lawsuit that is not baseless, and must defer to the state court's jurisdiction over genuine factual disputes.
• Mo-Kan Teamsters Pension Fund v. Creason
  716 F.2d 772· 10th Cir.· 1983-09-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a contract stipulation binding an employer to a collective bargaining agreement and its subsequent modifications, renewals, and extensions is enforceable, even if the employer later claims oral assurances modified its terms or that the union lacked majority su
• Landmark Int'l Trucks, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  699 F.2d 815· 6th Cir.· 1983-02-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that if dues checkoff was continued, the employer's letter informing employees of their right to resign from the union and revoke dues checkoff was permissible, and the subsequent withdrawal of recognition was lawful.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Inland Empire Meat Co.
  611 F.2d 1235· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a general unfair labor practice charge is sufficient to authorize the Board to issue a complaint for related unfair labor practices occurring within the statutory period, and that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's findings of unlawful disch
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Con-Pac, Inc.
  509 F.2d 270· 5th Cir.· 1975-03-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order requiring the company to bargain with the union should be enforced, as the union's waiver of initiation fees did not invalidate the election.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Quality Mfg. Co.
  481 F.2d 1018· 4th Cir.· 1973-07-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an employee does not have a right to union representation at an investigatory interview where disciplinary action might result, unless a grievance has already been filed. The Board's order to enforce discharges and suspensions based on this premise was denied.
• Landis Tool Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  460 F.2d 23· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the employer engaged in unfair labor practices, warranting setting aside the election and ordering a new one.
• TRW, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  393 F.2d 771· 6th Cir.· 1968-04-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an employer has a legal right to enforce a rule prohibiting union solicitation during working hours, and the National Labor Relations Board failed to demonstrate the rule was adopted for a discriminatory purpose.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Realist, Inc.
  328 F.2d 840· 7th Cir.· 1964-02-25 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge would deny enforcement of the Board's order, arguing the company president's speech did not constitute an unfair labor practice.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Charles R. Krimm Lumber Co.
  203 F.2d 194· 2d Cir.· 1953-04-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order against the respondents for unfair labor practices was supported by substantial evidence and should be enforced, including against a successor corporation.
• John Morrell & Co. v. Local Union 304A OF the United Food & Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO
  913 F.2d 544· 8th Cir.· 1990-09-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a no-strike clause limited to disputes subject to the contract's peaceful settlement procedures does not clearly and unmistakably waive the right to engage in sympathy strikes.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Knogo Corp.
  727 F.2d 55· 2d Cir.· 1984-02-03 ·cited 16×
  The court granted enforcement of the National Labor Relations Board's orders except for the bargaining order, finding that the Board failed to consider the passage of time and employee turnover, which rendered the bargaining order inappropriate.
• City Disposal Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  683 F.2d 1005· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-22 ·cited 16×
  An employee's refusal to operate a vehicle due to safety concerns is not protected concerted activity under Section 7 if it is solely on behalf of the individual employee and not made with the object of inducing group action.
• Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Nat'l Constructors Ass'n
  678 F.2d 492· 4th Cir.· 1982-05-17 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the agreement is not per se illegal under the Sherman Act and that venue was improper for two defendants.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kiawah Island Co., Ltd.
  650 F.2d 485· 4th Cir.· 1981-05-27 ·cited 16×
  The court should have found substantial evidence that Kiawah discriminatorily discharged Hymes and Murray due to their union organizing efforts.
• Amcar Division v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  641 F.2d 561· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the union's repeated attempts to negotiate exceptions to the no-strike clause, coupled with the Absence Control Program and the parties' conduct, demonstrated a clear and unmistakable waiver of the employees' right to engage in sympathy strikes.
• Monteiro v. Poole Silver Co.
  615 F.2d 4· 1st Cir.· 1980-02-14 ·cited 16×
  An employee's insincere or bad-faith accusations of discrimination, made to defend against legitimate employer criticism, do not constitute protected "opposition" under Title VII's anti-retaliation provision.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Apollo Tire Co., Inc.
  604 F.2d 1180· 9th Cir.· 1979-08-14 ·cited 16×
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ne. Univ.
  601 F.2d 1208· 1st Cir.· 1979-06-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the university did not dominate the Weekly Staff Cabinet (WSC) as it lacked evidence of actual domination, but did violate Section 8(a)(1) by denying a group access to facilities for discussing wages and working conditions.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dawson Cabinet Co., Inc.
  566 F.2d 1079· 8th Cir.· 1977-12-13 ·cited 16×
• Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  521 F.2d 1159· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order finding AT&T committed an unfair labor practice by disciplining an employee for rude conduct during collective bargaining activities must be enforced, despite the court's reservations about the triviality of the matte
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Cast Optics Corp.
  458 F.2d 398· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Company's refusal to bargain with the Union and its discharge/refusal to reinstate strikers constituted unfair labor practices, as its condonation of an earlier illegal work stoppage was not vitiated by subsequent employee conduct.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. RED TOP CAB & Baggage Co.
  383 F.2d 547· 5th Cir.· 1967-10-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the employee's discharge was unlawfully motivated by protected concerted activities was not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gale Prods.
  337 F.2d 390· 7th Cir.· 1964-09-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the company's enforcement of a contract provision restricting solicitation on company property constituted an unfair labor practice.
• Melville Confections, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  327 F.2d 689· 7th Cir.· 1964-01-29 ·cited 16×
  Maintaining a profit-sharing plan that disqualifies employees for union representation is a per se violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, regardless of specific intent or proof of actual interference.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mayrath Co.
  319 F.2d 424· 7th Cir.· 1963-06-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the employer unlawfully discharged employees for wearing union buttons, but not the probationary employee, Max Wells, whose discharge was unrelated to union activity.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Flotill Prods.
  180 F.2d 441· 9th Cir.· 1950-02-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Board's order should not be enforced because subsequent events, specifically the dismissal of the representation proceeding, rendered the order moot and its enforcement would thwart the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act.
• Valentine Jurado v. Eleven-Fifty Corp.
  813 F.2d 1406· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-02 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of racial motivation for the English-only order and that his retaliation claim lacked evidence of protected activity, affirming summary judgment.
• Int'l Union OF Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  434 F.2d 473· D.C. Cir.· 1970-03-20 ·cited 15×
• Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  893 F.2d 1468· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-29 ·cited 14×
  The court granted in part and denied in part Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc.'s petition for review of a National Labor Relations Board order. The court affirmed the Board's finding that Kenrich violated section 8(a)(1) by discharging supervisor Helen Chizmar in retaliation for her r
• Local Union 59, Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. Green Corp. & Hutton Elec. Co.
  725 F.2d 264· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that judicial review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly limited, and the arbitrator's decision, drawing its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, should be reinstated.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co.
  674 F.2d 618· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the company violated Section 8(a)(1) by denying union representation to employees during investigatory interviews, but remanded the case to determine if the employee's discharge was for cause, precluding reinstatement and back pay.
• Fla. Steel Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  648 F.2d 233· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the company's showing of an anti-union videotape violated previous court orders prohibiting interference with employees' rights, and adopted the Special Master's recommended remedies for civil contempt.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Rubatex Corp.
  601 F.2d 147· 4th Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 14×
  The court should not enforce the Board's order requiring the company to pay $82,000 to union employees as it is an oppressive and punitive remedy.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ambrose Distrib. Co.
  358 F.2d 319· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence and granted enforcement of its order.
• Figueroa v. Nat'l Mar. Union OF Am., AFL-CIO
  342 F.2d 400· 2d Cir.· 1965-03-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while union interference with employment can constitute 'discipline' under LMRDA Section 101(a)(5), a union is not required to grant a hearing when a seaman admits to convictions that disqualify them from employment under a collective bargaining agreement.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Empire Mfg. Corp.
  260 F.2d 528· 4th Cir.· 1958-10-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the National Labor Relations Board's findings that the employer violated the Labor Management Relations Act by threatening employees and discharging them due to union activity.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Am. Pearl Button Co.
  149 F.2d 311· 8th Cir.· 1945-05-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that statements made by the American Pearl Button Company's president and foremen constituted unfair labor practices by interfering with employees' rights, but the Washington Chamber of Commerce's actions did not. Enforcement of the Board's order was granted agains
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Faultless Caster Corp.
  135 F.2d 559· 7th Cir.· 1943-05-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the employer engaged in unfair labor practices by interfering with, dominating, and coercing employees in their union activities, and by demoting an employee due to union membership. The court enforced the NLRB's order with modifications.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. WM. Tehel Bottling Co.
  129 F.2d 250· 8th Cir.· 1942-07-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order was supported by substantial evidence and would be enforced, rejecting the respondent's defenses.
• G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  879 F.2d 1526· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 13×
  The court held that G. Heileman Brewing Company was a joint employer and violated the NLRA by refusing to bargain with the union over its decision to subcontract electrical maintenance work.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United Techs. Corp.
  706 F.2d 1254· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-21 ·cited 13×
  The Supreme Court's decision in Magnavox establishes that employers cannot restrict employees' union solicitation rights during non-working hours, and unions cannot waive these rights, thus precluding collateral estoppel effect for prior decisions that allowed such restrictions.
• Marshall v. Stevens People AND Friends FOR Freedom and E. C. (Mildred) Ramsey
  669 F.2d 171· 4th Cir.· 1981-08-04 ·cited 13×
  The court held that while the Secretary of Labor's investigatory powers under the LMRDA are broad, the First Amendment protects the associational rights of non-supervisory employees, thus precluding disclosure of their identities. However, information regarding other contributors