Norris-Laguardia Act

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

• MacKey v. Nat'l Football League
  543 F.2d 606· 8th Cir.· 1976-10-18 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the Rozelle Rule, as implemented, does not qualify for the labor exemption and violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, but per se illegality is inappropriate due to the unique nature of professional football.
• Brotherhood OF Railroad Trainmen v. The Akron & Barberton Belt R.R. Co.
  385 F.2d 581· D.C. Cir.· 1967-05-12 ·cited 80×
  The court held that work rules established by a compulsory arbitration award continue in effect after the award's expiration unless changed according to the Railway Labor Act, and that carriers had a duty to bargain about proposed changes during the award's pendency.
• Bakery Sales Drivers Local Union NO. 33 v. Wagshal
  333 U.S. 437· U.S.· 1948-03-15 ·cited 80×
  The Court held that the controversy did not involve a "labor dispute" under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, making the interlocutory appeal permissible. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the Act did not apply.
• Local 205 v. Gen. Elec. Co. (Telechron Dep't
  233 F.2d 85· 1st Cir.· 1956-04-25 ·cited 79×
  A federal district court has jurisdiction under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act to compel an employer to arbitrate a dispute, as the Norris-LaGuardia Act's restrictions on injunctions do not apply to orders compelling arbitration.
• Los Angeles Meat & Provision Drivers Union v. United States
  371 U.S. 94· U.S.· 1962-11-19 ·cited 75×
  The Court affirmed the expulsion of grease peddlers from the union, finding no legitimate labor union interest being served by their organization given their stipulated status as independent businessmen who violated antitrust laws.
• The Indep. OIL & Chem. Workers OF Quincy, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co.
  864 F.2d 927· 1st Cir.· 1988-12-28 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the potential harm to union members from implementing new work rules was insufficient to justify overriding the limitations of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and granting injunctive relief pending arbitration.
• Windward Shipping (london) Ltd. v. Am. Radio Ass'n, Afl-Cio
  415 U.S. 104· U.S.· 1974-02-19 ·cited 69×
  The dissent argues that the Court misinterprets prior case law regarding the National Labor Relations Board's jurisdiction over labor disputes affecting commerce, particularly concerning foreign-flag vessels.
• Consol. Express, Inc. v. NEW York Shipping Ass'n, Inc.
  602 F.2d 494· 3d Cir.· 1979-04-16 ·cited 68×
  The court should not apply a per se antitrust approach if the labor exemption is found inapplicable; a rule of reason inquiry is appropriate.
• Shimman v. Frank
  625 F.2d 80· 6th Cir.· 1980-05-21 ·cited 66×
  The court held that collateral estoppel did not apply to bar the civil suit despite a prior criminal case dismissal, and that the district court's findings of liability under the Landrum-Griffin Act and state law were not clearly erroneous.
• Brotherhood OF Locomotive Firemen AND Enginemen and H. E. Gilbert v. Bangor & Aroostook R.R. Co.
  380 F.2d 570· D.C. Cir.· 1967-05-12 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the fines assessed were for civil contempt, not criminal, and thus did not require a jury trial. It also found the motion to disqualify the judge legally insufficient.
• Wilkes-Barre Publ'g Co. v. Newspaper Guild OF Wilkes-Barre
  647 F.2d 372· 3d Cir.· 1981-04-01 ·cited 60×
  The court held that a claim for tortious interference with a labor contract arises under federal common law and is within the district court's jurisdiction, and that individual union members are not liable for damages under section 301(b).
• Nat'l Ass'n OF Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO v. Sombrotto
  449 F.2d 915· 2d Cir.· 1971-09-28 ·cited 60×
  The court held that reversing a denial of preliminary injunctive relief in a labor dispute, especially after a supervening event like a national agreement, is an extraordinary and potentially inappropriate action for an appellate court.
• Amazon Cotton Mill Co. (national Labor Relations Bd. v. Textile Workers Union of Am.
  167 F.2d 183· 4th Cir.· 1948-04-01 ·cited 60×
  The District Court lacked jurisdiction to grant an injunction or award damages for unfair labor practices, as such matters are exclusively within the purview of the National Labor Relations Board.
• United States Steel Corp. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  519 F.2d 1236· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-24 ·cited 54×
  A prospective injunction against all strikes, even over arbitrable issues, is impermissible under the Norris-LaGuardia Act and Boys Markets. Disobedience of a void injunction cannot support a civil contempt finding.
• Angle v. Sacks
  382 F.2d 655· 10th Cir.· 1967-08-28 ·cited 54×
  The court held that a temporary injunction under § 10(j) of the NLRA is appropriate when there is reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices have occurred and a probability that the Act's purposes will be frustrated without such relief.
• Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge NO. 735
  376 F.2d 337· 6th Cir.· 1967-05-02 ·cited 54×
  A suit to enjoin a breach of a no-strike provision in a collective bargaining agreement, affecting interstate commerce, arises under federal law and is removable to federal court, even though the Norris-LaGuardia Act restricts the federal court's power to issue injunctions.
• Napa Pittsburgh, Inc. v. Auto. Chauffeurs
  502 F.2d 321· 3d Cir.· 1974-08-08 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the determination of whether a picket line was primary, thus allowing employees to refuse to cross it under the collective bargaining agreement, was an arbitrable dispute, and a preliminary injunction was proper pending arbitration.
• John L v. Pennington
  400 F.2d 806· 6th Cir.· 1968-09-11 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the District Court properly dismissed the Sherman Act claims for failure to prove a conspiracy with predatory intent, but remanded the state law claims for a determination of whether the correct standard of proof was applied.
• Squillacote v. Local 248
  534 F.2d 735· 7th Cir.· 1976-04-13 ·cited 50×
  Federal district courts have the power to grant temporary restraining orders under 29 U.S.C. § 160(j), and the notice provided was sufficient to establish jurisdiction. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the temporary restraining
• PAN Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Flight Eng'rs' Int'l Ass'n, PAA Chapter, AFL-CIO
  306 F.2d 840· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-25 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the flight engineers' strike was not permissible because the "crew complement" and "representation" issues had not been subjected to the required procedures under the Railway Labor Act.
• Stanley v. United States
  245 F.2d 427· 6th Cir.· 1957-05-22 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and violating the Federal Train Wreck Act, and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• Callanan v. United States
  223 F.2d 171· 8th Cir.· 1955-06-03 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt for conspiracy to extort and extortion under the Hobbs Act, and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• Lincoln Mills OF Alabama v. Textile Workers Union of Am.
  230 F.2d 81· 5th Cir.· 1956-01-31 ·cited 46×
  The court held that federal courts possess inherent equitable power to enforce arbitration agreements in collective bargaining contracts, even without explicit statutory authorization, to effectuate federal labor policy.
• Am. Fed'n of Musicians v. Stein
  213 F.2d 679· 6th Cir.· 1954-06-16 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction, as the Norris-LaGuardia Act was inapplicable and the jurisdictional question regarding diversity of citizenship was a substantial issue for the district court to determine.
• Int'l Ass'n of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers v. United Contractors Ass'n
  483 F.2d 384· 3d Cir.· 1973-07-17 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the alleged conspiracy between an employers' association and a union, involving sham collective bargaining agreements and dual membership, could constitute a violation of antitrust laws, and that the unions and their members had standing to sue for damages res
• NEW York Tel. Co. v. Commc'ns Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  445 F.2d 39· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-22 ·cited 43×
  The court should not interpret a consent order's scope without a hearing, even if its language appears unambiguous, when there's a dispute about the parties' intent.
• Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Serv.
  823 F.2d 466· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-04 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the United States Arbitration Act (USAA) does not apply to labor arbitrations under the Postal Reorganization Act, and that the timeliness of suits to vacate arbitration awards should be governed by a uniform federal limitations period, borrowing the three-mon
• United States Steel Corp. v. Fraternal Ass'n OF Steel Haulers
  601 F.2d 1269· 3d Cir.· 1979-07-10 ·cited 42×
  The court held that contempt adjudications without imposed sanctions are not appealable, that the district court correctly refused to dissolve the permanent injunction, and that the modification of the injunction to exempt certain FASH members was an error.
• Cal. Dump Truck Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Associated Gen. Contractors OF Am.
  562 F.2d 607· 9th Cir.· 1977-10-05 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the amended complaint, as written, failed to state a claim for antitrust violations based solely on the collective bargaining agreement, but may be amended to allege conspiracies beyond the agreement.
• Emery AIR Freight Corp. v. Local Union 295
  449 F.2d 586· 2d Cir.· 1971-09-24 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted because the underlying dispute was not arbitrable, and the contempt order and fine were imposed without a proper hearing, requiring reconsideration.
• Joseph v. Manning
  329 F.2d 32· 2d Cir.· 1964-02-14 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Railway Labor Act's Section 6, requiring maintenance of the status quo during dispute resolution, applies to a union dues check-off agreement, even if it has a fixed termination date.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. MT. Clemens Pottery Co.
  147 F.2d 262· 6th Cir.· 1945-02-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while the employer interfered with employee unionization and assisted in forming a company union, certain reinstatement orders were not supported by evidence or were arbitrary.
• McLEOD v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  366 F.2d 847· 2d Cir.· 1966-09-08 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction under section 10(j) of the NLRA because the facts did not demonstrate the special circumstances required for such an extraordinary remedy prior to the Board's decision.
• Flight Eng'rs' Int'l Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  303 F.2d 5· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-07 ·cited 41×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction against a strike over a "minor dispute" under the Railway Labor Act was proper to preserve the status quo pending determination by the System Board of Adjustment, and that the injunction against the February strike was moot.
• NEW Orleans S.S. Ass'n v. General Longshore Workers
  626 F.2d 455· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-25 ·cited 40×
  Federal courts may enforce arbitration awards holding work stoppages invalid under collective bargaining agreements, but cannot enjoin actions pending arbitration or extend awards to future cases. Such injunctions do not violate First Amendment or Thirteenth Amendment rights.
• United States Steel Corp. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  534 F.2d 1063· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-16 ·cited 40×
  A preliminary injunction should not have been issued against the district and international unions as there was no evidence they ordered, approved, or condoned the local union's work stoppages.
• Island Creek Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  507 F.2d 650· 3d Cir.· 1975-01-14 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a dispute over employees honoring stranger picket lines is arbitrable under the contract's broad settlement of disputes provisions, justifying a preliminary injunction.
• McLEOD v. Bus. Mach. & Off. Appliance Mechanics Conf. Bd., Local 459 Int'l Union OF Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, AFL-CIO
  300 F.2d 237· 2d Cir.· 1962-02-07 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting an injunction because the handbilling was likely protected by the National Labor Relations Act's publicity proviso, and the court should defer to existing Board precedent.
• Chicago v. Switchmen's Union OF N. Am.
  292 F.2d 61· 2d Cir.· 1961-06-09 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue an anti-strike injunction based on the union's alleged lack of good faith bargaining, as the record did not demonstrate a clear violation of the Railway Labor Act sufficient to overcome the Norris-LaGuardia Act's
• Me. Cent. R.R. Co. v. United Transp. Union & Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps.
  787 F.2d 780· 1st Cir.· 1986-04-09 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the dispute was minor, entitling MEC to an injunction against a union strike pending adjustment procedures.
• Detroit Newspaper Publishers Ass'n v. Detroit Typographical Union NO. 18
  471 F.2d 872· 6th Cir.· 1972-12-20 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because it failed to weigh the equities between the parties and make findings of irreparable harm, which are required prerequisites under Boys Markets.
• Hilbert v. Pa. R.R. Co.
  290 F.2d 881· 7th Cir.· 1961-05-29 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the dispute over the railroad's right to reassign engineers and eliminate 'constructive allowances' constituted a 'minor dispute' under the Railway Labor Act, not a 'major dispute'.
• Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. Co.
  845 F.2d 420· 3d Cir.· 1988-04-08 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Railway Labor Act's (RLA) status quo bargaining requirement is superseded by the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) and its amendments, including the Staggers Act, when the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) approves the sale of an entire rail system to a new
• Dick G. Richards v. Neilsen Freight Lines
  810 F.2d 898· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-17 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trucking companies' termination of interlining with Foothills was justified by legitimate business interests and not evidence of an antitrust conspiracy, and that the union's actions were protected by the nonstatutory labor exemption to antitrust laws.
• United Steelworkers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Fort Pitt Steel Casting
  598 F.2d 1273· 3d Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Boys Markets exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act allowed injunctions to preserve the arbitral process, even against employers, and that continuing premium payments during plant wind-down was necessary to maintain the status quo for arbitration.
• 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.
• Intercontinental Container Transp. Corp. v. NEW York Shipping Ass'n, Inc.
  426 F.2d 884· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-05 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the plaintiff (ICTC) had not shown probable success on the merits of its claim that the defendants' actions were motivated by anticompetitive employer interests rather than legitimate union job preservation goals.
• Switchmen's Union OF N. Am., AFL-CIO v. S. Pac. Co.
  398 F.2d 443· 9th Cir.· 1968-07-10 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the dispute was a minor dispute under the Railway Labor Act, allowing the district court to issue an injunction.
• R.R. Yardmasters of Am. v. Pa. R.R. Co.
  224 F.2d 226· 3d Cir.· 1955-07-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not prevent injunctive relief when a carrier threatens to violate explicit provisions of the Railway Labor Act, and that a preliminary injunction was properly issued given serious doubts about the validity of a labor agreement and
• United Indus. Workers of the Seafarers Int'l Union of N. Am. v. Bd. OF Trs. OF Galveston Wharves & the City of Galveston
  400 F.2d 320· 5th Cir.· 1968-08-08 ·cited 37×
  The court held that a federal court has the authority to order backpay as a sanction for a carrier's violation of Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act, and that a federal court can enjoin state proceedings that interfere with its federal labor law orders.