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. Schroeder
  726 F.2d 967· 3d Cir.· 1984-01-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board cannot conclusively presume an employer is liable for threatening statements made by a supervisor; agency principles must be applied, allowing the employer to rebut the presumption of agency.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Tamara Foods, Inc.
  692 F.2d 1171· 8th Cir.· 1982-11-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order finding that Tamara Foods unlawfully discharged employees for engaging in protected concerted activity was enforceable.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lummus Indus., Inc.
  679 F.2d 229· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that discharging an employee for circulating a leaflet and conducting a survey aimed at evaluating and improving union representation, even if containing allegations of 'sellouts' or potential bribery made without knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for trut
• Sears v. Dep't OF THE Navy
  680 F.2d 863· 1st Cir.· 1982-06-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Navy's annual notice of the right to union representation was sufficient, even if provided after the employee's investigatory interview, as the employee failed to show substantial harm.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Serv. Mach. & Shipbuilding Corp.
  662 F.2d 1125· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the discharge of employees for refusing to operate electrical equipment in the rain, due to fear of electrical shock, violated the National Labor Relations Act.
• MGM Grand Hotel-Reno, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  653 F.2d 1322· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the wage increase granted by the Hotel was justified by economic factors and was not an unfair labor practice, but other findings by the NLRB regarding interrogation, threats, invalid rules, and discrimination against Csonka were supported by substantial evide
• Blaw-Knox Foundry & Mill Mach. Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  646 F.2d 113· 4th Cir.· 1981-04-07 ·cited 2×
  An individual employee's actions protesting alleged sexual harassment, without intent to enlist group support or enforce a collective bargaining agreement, do not constitute protected concerted activity under the NLRA.
• Nat'l Vendors v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  630 F.2d 1265· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-26 ·cited 2×
  The court should enforce the Board's order because the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence and strike a balance in accordance with national labor policy.
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  626 F.2d 119· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a union's refusal to grant unemployment stamps to nonmember employees, while granting them to members, constitutes discrimination that unlawfully encourages union membership, violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act.
• Puerto RICO Food Prods. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  619 F.2d 153· 1st Cir.· 1980-05-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the employees' work stoppage protesting their supervisor's discharge was not protected concerted activity under the NLRA because there was insufficient evidence that the protest was motivated by a legitimate concern for their own employment conditions.
• Sears v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  450 F.2d 56· 6th Cir.· 1971-10-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order finding Sears guilty of violating Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act was not supported by substantial evidence.
• J. A. Hackney & Sons, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  426 F.2d 943· 4th Cir.· 1970-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the employer's reduction in workforce was not discriminatory because economic necessity left no reasonable alternative, despite prior anti-union statements.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 138
  380 F.2d 244· 2d Cir.· 1967-06-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in adopting the Woolworth formula for back pay calculations and that the Union should have been allowed to amend its pleadings to present evidence on job availability and interim earnings.
• Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  311 F.2d 19· 7th Cir.· 1962-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board failed to meet its burden of proof in showing that the employer's reorganization of its printing operations violated the National Labor Relations Act.
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists, Local Lodge NO. 311, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  289 F.2d 451· D.C. Cir.· 1961-02-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Board's order finding the Union violated Section 8(b)(2) of the NLRA was not supported by the record, as intervening circumstances negated the presumption that the Union's continued picketing and listing after decertification were for illegal purposes.
• P. H. Glatfelter Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  141 F.2d 631· 3d Cir.· 1944-03-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Board's findings of unfair labor practices, including discrimination against an employee for union activity and interference with employees' rights to self-organization, were supported by substantial evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Germain Seed & Plant Co.
  134 F.2d 94· 9th Cir.· 1943-02-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence supported the National Labor Relations Board's findings that the employer dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of a labor union and contributed support to it, but not that the employer recognized the union as representati
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Newberry Lumber & Chem. Co.
  123 F.2d 831· 6th Cir.· 1941-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order should be enforced as modified, allowing for additional evidence regarding back pay calculations.
• Diamond T Motor Car Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  119 F.2d 978· 7th Cir.· 1941-05-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the company's actions and statements did not constitute substantial proof of unlawful interference or domination of a labor union, and thus did not violate the National Labor Relations Act.
• Local 355 v. Pier 66 Co.
  599 F. Supp. 761· S.D. Fla.· 1984-12-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the union's claims alleging employer interference in employee decertification efforts constituted unfair labor practices preempted by the National Labor Relations Board's exclusive jurisdiction, and that the union lacked standing for a RICO claim due to insuff
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wilmapeg Indus. Corp.
  282 F.2d 890· 6th Cir.· 1960-09-30 ·cited 1×
  The court ordered the respondents to cease and desist from unfair labor practices and to take affirmative action to remedy violations of the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Motorola, Inc.
  991 F.2d 278· 5th Cir.· 1993-05-26
  The court held that while threats to an employee's career for opposing a drug testing policy constitute unfair labor practices, minor interferences like temporary T-shirt prohibitions and bans on literature distribution by an outside political organization do not violate the Nati
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Almet
  987 F.2d 445· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-03
  The court held that Almet, Inc. committed unfair labor practices by threatening, disciplining, and suspending employees to discourage union activity, and that the National Labor Relations Board's order for a new election was supported by substantial evidence.
• Gatliff Coal Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  953 F.2d 247· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-08
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding that Gatliff Coal Company unlawfully discharged two employees for engaging in protected concerted activities was supported by substantial evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Int'l Union OF Elevator Constructors, AFL-CIO
  902 F.2d 1297· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-27
  The dissenting judge argues that an employee's refusal to cross a lawful picket line, even at a neutral gate, constitutes protected activity under Section 7 of the NLRA, and the Board's finding of a neutral gate was not supported by substantial evidence.
• Carpenters Local NO. 33 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  873 F.2d 316· D.C. Cir.· 1989-04-21
  The court affirmed the Board's finding that the Union violated § 8(b)(4) because there was substantial evidence that the primary gate was not effectively hidden from the public.
• Int'l Union v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  834 F.2d 816· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-16
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's conclusion that Kawasaki's pre-election statements were lawful predictions of plant closure based on objective economic facts, rather than unlawful threats, was supported by substantial evidence.
• The United Steelworkers OF Am. Afl-Cio-Clc v. Johnson
  830 F.2d 924· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-07
  The court erred in concluding that South Dakota denied unemployment benefits based on union membership rather than the voluntary or involuntary nature of unemployment.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Laborers' Int'l Union OF N. Am., AFL-CIO
  810 F.2d 665· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-23
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the Union engaged in unfair labor practices was supported by substantial evidence, and enforced the Board's order.
• Herrick & Smith v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  802 F.2d 565· 1st Cir.· 1986-09-29
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board failed to meet its initial burden of showing that protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the employee's discharge, based on the record as a whole.
• Millwright & Mach. Erectors v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  798 F.2d 781· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-27
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board erred in finding a section 8(b)(1)(A) violation based solely on a union's internal discipline imposed without prior notice of a rule change, when that discipline did not affect the member's employment.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Truckdrivers Union Local 164
  753 F.2d 53· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-22
  The court granted the National Labor Relations Board's application for enforcement of its order against Teamsters Local 164.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Methodist Hosp. OF Gary, Inc.
  733 F.2d 43· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-25
  The court held that the hospital's refusal to allow a union election in its cafeterias was an unfair labor practice because it was discriminatorily motivated, and the hospital's subsequent policy change did not render the enforcement petition moot.
• 'Totes' Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  688 F.2d 26· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-10
  The court held that throwing a firecracker at a supervisor's car during a strike is not protected activity under the Act, and the Board's determination to the contrary was arbitrary.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Slotkowski Sausage Co.
  620 F.2d 642· 7th Cir.· 1980-05-08
  Unilateral attempts by an employee outside a bargaining unit to promote himself into the unit and a higher-paying position do not constitute protected concerted activity under the Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. McCAFFREY
  619 F.2d 620· 6th Cir.· 1980-04-23
  The court held that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by discharging employees for engaging in protected concerted activity and refusing to reinstate them.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. ST. Joseph Hosp.
  587 F.2d 1060· 10th Cir.· 1978-11-30
  The court held that the hospital's no-solicitation and no-distribution rules were overly broad and violated the National Labor Relations Act, but the Board's order was too vague regarding 'immediate patient care areas'.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 40, Int'l Ass'n OF Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO
  451 F.2d 119· 2d Cir.· 1971-11-05
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that the union committed an unfair labor practice by causing an employee's termination for non-membership, not for failure to pay dues under a valid union-security clause.
• Price Bros. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  422 F.2d 452· 6th Cir.· 1970-01-30
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's decision finding the company unlawfully discharged an employee was not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local Union NO. 1842, Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO
  283 F.2d 112· 6th Cir.· 1960-10-20
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence and its order should be enforced.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Monsanto Chem. Co.
  225 F.2d 16· 9th Cir.· 1955-07-27
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mac Smith Garment Co., Inc.
  219 F.2d 469· 5th Cir.· 1955-02-09
  The court held that the discharges of employees for attempting to secure a wage increase, before their actions escalated to unlawful compulsion, constituted unfair labor practices.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kaplan
  138 F.2d 884· 2d Cir.· 1943-11-01
  The court held that respondents are not entitled to credit for wages earned by a discharged employee in a higher-paying new job when calculating back pay owed.