Norris-Laguardia Act

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

• Inland Steel Co. v. Local Union NO. 1545
  505 F.2d 293· 7th Cir.· 1974-10-22 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the injunctions did not conflict with the Norris-LaGuardia Act, as the dispute over honoring picket lines was arbitrable.
• Amstar Corp. v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen OF N. Am., AFL-CIO
  468 F.2d 1372· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-06 ·cited 36×
  A district court cannot issue a Boys Markets injunction when the legality of the strike itself is the arbitrable dispute.
• Carter v. United States
  135 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1943-04-12 ·cited 36×
  The dissenting judge believes the conviction for criminal contempt cannot stand because the order disobeyed was void for lack of jurisdiction, and thus not a lawful order.
• AIR Line Pilots Ass'n v. United AIR Lines, Inc.
  802 F.2d 886· 7th Cir.· 1986-09-29 ·cited 35×
  The court held that United's rebid procedures and hiring of permanent replacement pilots were lawful under the Railway Labor Act, but its treatment of the Group of 500 trainees violated the Act.
• Local Lodge NO. 1266, Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Panoramic Corp.
  668 F.2d 276· 7th Cir.· 1981-12-30 ·cited 34×
  A district court may grant a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending arbitration if the sale of corporate assets would frustrate the arbitral process.
• Del. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. v. Gen. Teamster Local Union 326 & E. Conf. of Teamsters
  624 F.2d 1182· 3d Cir.· 1980-06-25 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the doctrine of coterminous application does not apply to express no-strike clauses, and that a sympathy strike in support of a primary unfair labor practice strike is not impermissible under certain circumstances.
• Avco Corp. v. Local Union #787 OF the Int'l Union
  459 F.2d 968· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-05 ·cited 34×
  A district court may not decline to issue a Boys Markets injunction solely because the compulsory arbitration clause of a collective bargaining agreement is 'employee-oriented,' provided both parties are contractually bound to arbitrate.
• Brotherhood OF Railroad Trainmen v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co.
  362 F.2d 649· 5th Cir.· 1966-06-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not prohibit a district court from enjoining railroad employees engaged in a labor dispute with their employer from interfering with the business of carriers with whom they have no dispute.
• Retail Clerks Union v. Food Emp'rs Council, Inc.
  351 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1965-10-19 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a temporary injunction, as it had jurisdiction and discretion to issue relief beyond what the Regional Director proposed, and the injunction was not overly broad.
• Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. Co. v. Bhd. OF Locomotive Eng'rs
  266 F.2d 335· 5th Cir.· 1959-04-20 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction to protect the National Railroad Adjustment Board's jurisdiction over a minor dispute, but it erred in ordering the railroad companies to restore the status quo.
• Brotherhood OF Railroad Trainmen v. The NEW York Cent. R.R. Co.
  246 F.2d 114· 6th Cir.· 1957-06-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the railroad yard closing dispute was not a labor dispute under the Railway Labor Act or Norris-LaGuardia Act, and thus the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the strike due to irreparable harm to interstate commerce.
• Copra v. José A. Suro
  236 F.2d 107· 1st Cir.· 1956-07-06 ·cited 34×
  The denial of a temporary injunction was not an improvident exercise of discretion because of doubts regarding federal jurisdiction under § 301 and the potential for the controversy to be resolved in a prior, more appropriate case.
• Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Templeton
  181 F.2d 527· 8th Cir.· 1950-04-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that awards by the National Railroad Adjustment Board were void for lack of notice to affected employees, and subsequent agreements implementing these awards were an unjustified interference with the employees' right to employment.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ohio Calcium Co.
  133 F.2d 721· 6th Cir.· 1943-02-19 ·cited 34×
  The court held that striking employees who engaged in unlawful conduct, such as throwing rocks or attempting to sabotage operations, forfeited their status as employees and were not entitled to reinstatement under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Int'l Union v. Mack Trucks, Inc.
  820 F.2d 91· 3d Cir.· 1987-06-05 ·cited 33×
  The court held that Mack's unilateral change of health insurance carriers violated the collective bargaining agreement and deprived the Union of a valuable bargaining chip, constituting substantial harm. The Norris-LaGuardia Act did not preclude injunctive relief.
• Wooten v. Ohler
  303 F.2d 759· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-06 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the Sheriff's interference with peaceful picketing, based on a policy of protecting non-union shops, likely violated constitutional rights, and thus the preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion.
• Heheman v. The E. W. Scripps Co.
  661 F.2d 1115· 6th Cir.· 1981-10-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Scanner Agreement's guarantee of lifetime employment was permanent and not limited by the expiration of collective bargaining agreements or the closure of the Post's printing operations. The court also reversed the district court's decision that the printe
• Enter. Ass'n OF Steam v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  521 F.2d 885· D.C. Cir.· 1975-07-01 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Board's 'right to control' test is inconsistent with National Woodwork Manufacturing Association v. NLRB, and that a union strike over a violation of a lawful collective bargaining agreement is not a violation of Section 8(b)(4) unless other objects taint
• The N. Am. Coal Corp. v. Local Union 2262
  497 F.2d 459· 6th Cir.· 1974-05-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was invalid due to the district court's failure to consider equitable factors and irreparable harm, and that the contempt convictions against the individual officers and the local union were invalid due to procedural errors and lack
• Jays Foods, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  292 F.2d 317· 7th Cir.· 1961-07-25 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings were not supported by substantial evidence, as the employer's decision to discontinue its in-house repair department and farm out the work was motivated by legitimate economic reasons, not discriminatory anti-union
• Brotherhood OF Locomotive Firemen AND Enginemen v. United States
  411 F.2d 312· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-02 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the criminal contempt proceedings lacked due process because the defendants were not given adequate notice and time to prepare their defense, and the prosecution was improperly handled by private counsel for the opposing parties.
• United States Steel Corp. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  598 F.2d 363· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-05 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a local union can be liable for damages from an unauthorized strike if it ratifies the strike through insufficient efforts to end it, but rejected a contempt sanction requiring the union to create a future notification plan as impermissible injunctive relief.
• Cedar Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  560 F.2d 1153· 4th Cir.· 1977-07-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that an indefinite continuance of a preliminary injunction hearing is appealable as a refusal of an injunction, and that dismissal of a complaint with prejudice is a final, appealable order. The court also found that the cases were not moot despite the strike endin
• Compton v. Nat'l Mar. Union OF Am., AFL-CIO
  533 F.2d 1270· 1st Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court had reasonable cause to believe the union violated the Act and that PRMMI is an employer under the Act, but erred in ordering PRMMI to retain NMU seamen as it exceeded the limited scope of injunctive relief permitted under Section 10(j).
• Consolidation Coal Co. v. Disabled Miners OF Southern West Virginia
  442 F.2d 1261· 4th Cir.· 1971-05-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that preliminary injunctions must comply with procedural rules regarding notice and hearing, and that injunctions should be narrowly tailored. It also found that an association was improperly dismissed as a party.
• Retail Clerks Union Local 1222, AFL-CIO v. Alfred M. Lewis, Inc.
  327 F.2d 442· 9th Cir.· 1964-02-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that federal district courts have jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act to enforce collective bargaining agreements, and that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not bar such enforcement actions when they do not involve enjoining specifi
• Indep. Petroleum Workers of N.J. v. Esso Standard OIL Co.
  235 F.2d 401· 3d Cir.· 1956-06-26 ·cited 30×
  A federal district court has jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act to decree specific performance of a collective bargaining agreement provision requiring negotiation on salary rates for new job classifications.
• Khedivial Line v. Seafarers' Int'l Union
  278 F.2d 49· 2d Cir.· 1960-05-04 ·cited 29×
  A federal court cannot issue an injunction for a maritime tort, as admiralty jurisdiction does not grant injunctive relief and federal question jurisdiction does not extend to general maritime law claims.
• BE&K Constr. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  536 U.S. 516· U.S.· 2002-06-24 ·cited 28×
  The National Labor Relations Act does not permit the NLRB to declare unlawful an employer's reasonably based but unsuccessful lawsuit filed with a retaliatory motive, solely based on the fact of the lawsuit and employer's dislike of the union.
• Scott v. Moore
  680 F.2d 979· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-01 ·cited 28×
• Ashley v. United Transp. Union & ITS Affiliated Local NO. 1121
  625 F.2d 1357· 8th Cir.· 1980-07-09 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not bar injunctive relief because the picketing did not arise from a labor dispute involving the union's economic self-interest, and federal jurisdiction existed under the Railway Labor Act to preserve dispute settlement procedures
• Bituminous Coal Operators' Ass'n, Inc. v. Int'l Union
  585 F.2d 586· 3d Cir.· 1978-09-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while injunctive relief was properly denied due to the Norris-LaGuardia Act, the dismissal of the request for declaratory relief was erroneous, as such relief is available in labor disputes not subject to arbitration.
• S. Ohio Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  551 F.2d 695· 6th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a union's refusal to cross stranger picket lines is not an arbitrable dispute subject to injunction under Boys Markets, and that injunctions against district and international unions require more than mere notice.
• Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  476 F.2d 860· 3d Cir.· 1973-02-12 ·cited 28×
  A party cannot attack the validity of an underlying court order in a civil contempt proceeding if they failed to appeal or object to that order when it was issued.
• Ry. Express Agency v. Brotherhood OF Railway
  437 F.2d 388· 5th Cir.· 1971-01-25 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a dispute over the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement's scope clause, particularly concerning management's prerogative to contract out work, is a minor dispute under the Railway Labor Act, allowing for injunctive relief.
• Dunn v. Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n, AFL-CIO
  307 F.2d 285· 6th Cir.· 1962-08-22 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint because it failed to state a cause of action within the court's jurisdiction, particularly regarding the refusal of the Regional Director to act.
• Tex. & NEW Orleans R.R. Co. v. Brotherhood OF Railroad Trainmen
  307 F.2d 151· 5th Cir.· 1962-07-06 ·cited 28×
  The court clarified factual findings and corrected inaccuracies in its prior opinion, but these changes did not alter the outcome of the appeal.
• Adams Dairy Co. v. ST. Louis Dairy Co.
  260 F.2d 46· 8th Cir.· 1958-10-14 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that the labor contract was illegal per se, and that the jury's verdict, based on proper instructions regarding conspiracy and the Rule of Reason, was supported by the evidence.
• Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  237 F.2d 545· D.C. Cir.· 1956-05-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board cannot deny reinstatement and back pay to employees based solely on their failure to disassociate themselves from strike misconduct, absent proof of their participation or agency. However, the Board's decision to affirm the d
• Toledo v. Brotherhood OF Railroad Trainmen
  132 F.2d 265· 7th Cir.· 1942-12-16 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting judge argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the controversy did not arise under federal law, and alternatively, that the plaintiff forfeited its right to injunctive relief by refusing to arbitrate.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Newark Morning Ledger Co.
  120 F.2d 262· 3d Cir.· 1941-02-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board lacks jurisdiction to enforce an order concerning a discharge that occurred after a collective bargaining agreement was in place, as such a dispute is a private contractual matter.
• S. Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood OF Locomotive Firemen AND Enginemen
  337 F.2d 127· D.C. Cir.· 1964-07-14 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a railroad could be enjoined from changing working conditions (operating trains without firemen) pending resolution of a major dispute under the Railway Labor Act, and that the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not prevent such an injunction. The court also affirmed th
• Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
  839 F.2d 809· D.C. Cir.· 1988-02-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the National Mediation Board's certification of a union is generally unreviewable by courts absent a gross violation of the Railway Labor Act or constitutional rights. However, an injunction against unilateral changes in working conditions is not permissible u
• Painting & Decorating Contractors Ass'n OF Sacramento, Inc. v. Painters & Decorators Joint Comm. OF the E. BAY Cntys., Inc.
  707 F.2d 1067· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-08 ·cited 26×
  A non-signatory to a collective bargaining agreement can be a proper party to a suit brought under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act if the resolution of the lawsuit is focused upon and governed by the terms of the contract.
• NEW Orleans S.S. Ass'n v. General Longshore Workers
  389 F.2d 369· 5th Cir.· 1968-01-26 ·cited 26×
  A federal court has jurisdiction to enforce an arbitrator's cease and desist order regarding work stoppages, even though the Norris-LaGuardia Act generally prohibits injunctions in labor disputes.
• Am. Dredging Co. v. Local 25, Marine Div., Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs, AFL-CIO
  338 F.2d 837· 3d Cir.· 1964-10-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a suit to enjoin a union's violation of a no-strike clause in a collective bargaining agreement arises under federal labor law and is removable to federal court, even though federal law, specifically the Norris-La Guardia Act, precludes injunctive relief in su
• Local 36 OF Int'l Fishermen & Allied Workers OF Am. v. United States
  177 F.2d 320· 9th Cir.· 1949-09-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently stated a crime under the Sherman Act, as the fishermen were independent businessmen engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices and restrain trade, not a labor union seeking legitimate objectives.
• Chicago & N. W. Transp. Co. v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n
  908 F.2d 144· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-17 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the sale of a railroad line is a management prerogative not subject to mandatory bargaining under the Railway Labor Act, and thus the unions' Section 6 notice did not freeze the status quo, allowing the sale to proceed while effects bargaining occurs.
• United Mine Workers OF Am. Dist. NO. 5 v. Consolidation Coal Co.
  666 F.2d 806· 3d Cir.· 1981-12-02 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits of the dispute because it was arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement, and the preliminary injunction was overbroad.
• Cal. State Council OF Carpenters, United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., AFL-CIO v. Associated Gen. Contractors OF Cal., Inc.
  648 F.2d 527· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-20 ·cited 25×
  The court's order does not clarify the application of the Sherman Act to employer agreements, leaving uncertainty regarding potential violations.