National Labor Relations Act § 7

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

• The Visador Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  386 F.2d 276· 4th Cir.· 1967-10-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the employer did not violate the Act by discharging Roberts, Forward, Low, or Weatherford (first discharge), nor by discharging supervisor Pendergast, but did violate the Act through certain interrogations and threats. The discharge of Williams was found to be
• Skyline Homes, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  381 F.2d 706· 5th Cir.· 1967-08-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Skyline Homes, Inc. was in civil contempt for disobeying a prior decree enforcing an NLRB order, based on evidence of bad faith in dealing with the union.
• OIL v. Ark. La. GAS Co.
  332 F.2d 64· 10th Cir.· 1964-05-25 ·cited 6×
  Federal law preempts state intervention in peaceful labor disputes affecting commerce, even when the state action is intended to facilitate settlement through public findings and recommendations.
• Local Union NO. 1229 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  202 F.2d 186· D.C. Cir.· 1952-11-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Board erred in denying protection to the employees' concerted activity without finding the means used were unlawful.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Holtville ICE & Cold Storage Co.
  148 F.2d 168· 9th Cir.· 1945-02-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board had jurisdiction and that its findings of unfair labor practices, including employer domination of a union and discriminatory hiring, were substantially supported by the evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Arcade-Sunshine Co., Inc.
  122 F.2d 964· D.C. Cir.· 1941-10-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a petition for contempt verified on information and belief is sufficient, and that the petition stated charges with enough particularity to proceed.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Highland Shoe, Inc.
  119 F.2d 218· 1st Cir.· 1941-04-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the respondent's direct dealings with employees regarding wages and its instigation of a strike to avoid bargaining constituted unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act, and the Board's order for the respondent to bargain was valid even if
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Advance Transp. Co.
  965 F.2d 186· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-22 ·cited 4×
  The court enforced the NLRB's order, finding that Advance Transportation Company unlawfully terminated Daniel Tuffs due to his protected opposition to a compulsory profit-sharing plan, and that the company also unlawfully terminated Donovan Bauldry.
• United States Dep't OF Just. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.
  955 F.2d 998· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-19 ·cited 4×
  Uniformed border patrol agents do not have a statutory or constitutional right to wear union lapel pins on their uniforms while on duty, and the INS's policy prohibiting such adornments is justified.
• Int'l Bhd. OF Boilermakers v. Local Lodge D129 OF the Cement
  910 F.2d 1056· 2d Cir.· 1990-08-09 ·cited 4×
  A labor union's trusteeship imposed on a local lodge is invalid if the local lodge has fewer than ten members at the time of imposition, as it is automatically disbanded and no longer a subordinate body.
• Sierra Publ'g Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  889 F.2d 210· 9th Cir.· 1989-11-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that discharging employees for sending a letter to advertisers criticizing management and linking the newspaper's decline to stalled labor negotiations was protected concerted activity under the NLRA, as the letter was related to the labor dispute and not so disloy
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 54, Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Int'l Union, AFL-CIO
  887 F.2d 28· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-05 ·cited 4×
  A union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) by disciplining employees who change to financial core status and cross a picket line, even if the union constitution does not recognize such status.
• Slaughter v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  876 F.2d 11· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's conclusion that Weingarten rights do not extend to non-union employees is a permissible construction of Section 7 of the Act, and thus the court must defer to the Board's judgment.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Amateyus, Ltd.
  817 F.2d 996· 2d Cir.· 1987-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the NLRB's order, finding Amateyus adopted its predecessor's collective bargaining agreement and that Vulcan was Amateyus's alter ego, thus both were bound by the agreement.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Certified Grocers OF Ill., Inc.
  806 F.2d 744· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-21 ·cited 4×
  An employer's oral statements regarding confidentiality of employee information, made in response to specific questions and in context, cannot reasonably be interpreted as an overbroad rule forbidding disclosure of nonconfidential information, and thus do not violate the National
• Rest. Corp. OF Am. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  801 F.2d 1390· D.C. Cir.· 1986-09-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an employer's disparate enforcement of a no-solicitation rule does not violate the NLRA unless the permitted nonunion solicitations have a potential for interference with work substantially equivalent to union solicitations. Social solicitations for employee g
• R.B. Elec., Inc. v. Local 569, Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO
  781 F.2d 1440· 9th Cir.· 1986-02-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a district court should not grant relief to avoid arbitration unless the contract clause is facially invalid under federal labor law, which was not demonstrated here.
• Wash. State Nurses Ass'n v. Wash. State Hosp. Comm'n
  773 F.2d 1044· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Washington State Hospital Commission's budget review practices and public statements regarding hospital wage increases did not impermissibly interfere with collective bargaining rights protected by federal law.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co.
  730 F.2d 166· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-29 ·cited 4×
  Southwestern Bell Telephone Company was found in civil contempt for violating prior consent judgments by denying employees effective union representation during investigatory interviews and by refusing to allow the union to inspect relevant personnel files.
• Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. Teamsters Freight Local Union NO. 480
  727 F.2d 594· 6th Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge holds that the general no-strike clauses did not prohibit the strike because the district court failed to determine if the strike's cause was arbitrable.
• Carter v. Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n & Local 85 Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n
  724 F.2d 1472· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 4×
  The state tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act because the alleged tortious conduct is the same as conduct that would constitute an unfair labor practice under the Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Remodeling BY Oltmanns, Inc.
  719 F.2d 1420· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and granted the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement.
• Rainbow Tours, Inc. v. Haw. Joint Council OF Teamsters
  704 F.2d 1443· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-03 ·cited 4×
  The Union may not be liable for tortious interference with Rainbow's employee contracts after January 30, 1977, as employees' refusal to work was due to union-principle motivation. The Union may be liable for losses on January 29 and 30 if its unlawful conduct was a material fact
• United States v. Sheeran
  699 F.2d 112· 3d Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that mail fraud convictions must be reversed due to improper application of the statute to rights derived solely from NLRA Section 7, but RICO convictions are affirmed as they were predicated on independent Taft-Hartley violations. The case is remanded for resenten
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Faulkner Hosp.
  691 F.2d 51· 1st Cir.· 1982-10-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the hospital unlawfully discharged an employee for engaging in protected concerted activity was supported by substantial evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United States Postal Serv.
  689 F.2d 835· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was not substantial evidence that the employee reasonably feared discipline, and therefore, the suspension for insubordination did not violate the employee's Weingarten rights.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Concord Furniture Indus., Inc.
  675 F.2d 426· 1st Cir.· 1982-03-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the National Labor Relations Board's findings that the employer committed unfair labor practices by attributing coercive statements to a supervisor and by discharging employees due to anti-union animus.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hitchiner Mfg. Co.
  634 F.2d 1110· 8th Cir.· 1980-11-19 ·cited 4×
  The court enforced the National Labor Relations Board's order, finding sufficient evidence of unfair labor practices and upholding the issuance of a bargaining order.
• S & W Motor Lines, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  621 F.2d 598· 4th Cir.· 1980-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an employer's refusal to provide layoff information for non-bargaining unit employees, even if potentially relevant to union claims, did not violate the duty to bargain under § 8(a)(5) without a demonstrated "need to know."
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. MacHinists Local 1327, Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO
  608 F.2d 1219· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-10 ·cited 4×
  A union cannot enforce fines against former members for post-resignation conduct protected by Section 7 of the Act.
• Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  600 F.2d 132· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the company's rules prohibiting employees from distributing or making "false" statements were overbroad and violated the NLRA, and that the company's discriminatory enforcement of its distribution rule also violated the Act. The court also affirmed the NLRB's
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. The C. J. Krehbiel Co.
  593 F.2d 262· 6th Cir.· 1979-02-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the NLRB's findings that the employees were unlawfully discharged for engaging in protected, concerted activity.
• United Steelworkers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  377 F.2d 140· D.C. Cir.· 1966-12-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Labor Board did not err in dismissing charges against a union based on a prior Court of Appeals decision.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Nat'l Seal
  336 F.2d 781· 9th Cir.· 1964-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the employer's termination of probationary employees during a strike, based on a long-standing, uniformly enforced rule requiring uninterrupted probationary periods, did not constitute an unfair labor practice absent evidence of anti-union motivation.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Taxicab Drivers Union
  340 F.2d 905· 7th Cir.· 1964-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court amended the National Labor Relations Board order by deleting specific language and denied the petition for rehearing.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. KIT Mfg. Co., Inc.
  335 F.2d 166· 9th Cir.· 1964-08-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the company violated the NLRA by refusing to bargain and by discriminatorily discharging an employee, but not by failing to prevent an employee from circulating a decertification petition.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Anchorage Businessmen's Ass'n
  289 F.2d 619· 9th Cir.· 1961-03-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a multi-employer association's layoff of only union employees during a whipsaw strike constituted unlawful discrimination under § 8(a)(3) and (1) of the NLRA, and that the association interfered with the formation and administration of a rival union.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Falls Emp'rs' Council, Inc.
  277 F.2d 772· 9th Cir.· 1960-04-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the employers' actions in recalling locked-out employees to earn a limited amount of wages, thereby disqualifying them from unemployment benefits, did not violate sections 8(a)(3) or 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.
• Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Union Local NO. 339 v. Creighton's Rest. Corp.
  115 So. 2d 30· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-10-07 ·cited 4×
  A Florida appellate court upheld a temporary injunction against a union's picketing and strike activities at a non-interstate-commerce restaurant, but narrowed the injunction by striking overly broad provisions that prohibited inducing strikes and barred all entry onto the premis
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mechanics Educ. Soc'y OF Am.
  222 F.2d 429· 6th Cir.· 1955-04-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the respondent unions violated the National Labor Relations Act by causing an employee's discharge.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.
  191 F.2d 217· 9th Cir.· 1951-08-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Cincinnati agreement did not require the re-employment of "wild cat" strikers who were not employees at the time of the agreement, and that an employer is entitled to discharge employees for cause.
• Serv. Emps. Int'l Union Local 36, AFL-CIO v. City Cleaning Co., Inc.
  982 F.2d 89· 3d Cir.· 1992-12-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a union's action to enforce a grievance committee award under § 301 of the LMRA is governed by the analogous state statute of limitations for contract actions, not the six-month limitation period for hybrid § 301 actions.
• United States Postal Serv. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  969 F.2d 1064· D.C. Cir.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The National Labor Relations Board's interpretation of Section 7 of the NLRA, extending the right to union representation at investigatory interviews to include pre-interview consultation, is a permissible construction of the statute and consistent with Supreme Court precedent.
• George A. Hormel & Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  962 F.2d 1061· D.C. Cir.· 1992-05-08 ·cited 2×
  An employee's participation in a consumer boycott parade and rally, even if passive, constitutes disloyalty and is unprotected by the NLRA, allowing lawful discharge.
• Teamsters Local Union NOS. 822 & 592 a/w Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  956 F.2d 317· D.C. Cir.· 1992-02-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board failed to provide a reasoned explanation for departing from its prior precedent that an employer's breach of a strike settlement agreement constitutes an unfair labor practice under sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National La
• Reef Indus., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  952 F.2d 830· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an employer violated the NLRA by discharging an employee for creating and distributing a cartoon and letter that, while critical of management, were considered protected concerted activity related to an ongoing labor dispute.
• Cal. Elec. Co. v. Briley
  939 F.2d 790· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-25 ·cited 2×
  State law tort claims brought by an employer against former union employees are preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act when the duties alleged depend on the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
• Laborers' Local Union NO. 204, Laborers' Int'l Union OF N. Am., AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  904 F.2d 715· D.C. Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's decision to balance a union's right to handbill consumers against private property rights, and its subsequent dismissal of an unfair labor practice complaint, was based on a proper legal standard and reasonable accommodatio
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Jasper Seating Co., Inc.
  857 F.2d 419· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that discharging employees for protesting working conditions constituted unlawful interference with protected, concerted activity under the NLRA.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Chelsea Labs., Inc.
  825 F.2d 680· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-03 ·cited 2×
  The National Labor Relations Board's order finding an unfair labor practice for discharging an employee engaged in protected concerted activity is enforced.