Norris-Laguardia Act

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

• Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n OF NEW York
  625 F.2d 38· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-27 ·cited 14×
  A Boys Markets injunction may continue pending judicial enforcement of an arbitral award, but it cannot extend to await the outcome of parallel NLRB proceedings.
• McCOURT v. Cal. Sports, Inc.
  600 F.2d 1193· 6th Cir.· 1979-05-22 ·cited 14×
  The court should affirm the district court's grant of injunctive relief against Clause 9A of the National Hockey League's bylaws. This clause, which requires an equalization payment to a player's former club when the player becomes a free agent and is acquired by another club, co
• Amalgamated Transit Union v. Byrne
  568 F.2d 1025· 3d Cir.· 1977-09-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, as state officials' alleged interference with collective bargaining by threatening to withdraw subsidies violated federal labor policy under the NLRA.
• Nat'l Rejectors Indus. v. United Steelworkers OF Am.
  562 F.2d 1069· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-30 ·cited 14×
  The dissent argues that the majority erred in authorizing injunctive relief, as the dispute was procedural and not directly related to an arbitrable issue, and the employer failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Plain Dealer Publ'g Co. v. Cleveland Typographical Union # 53
  520 F.2d 1220· 6th Cir.· 1975-08-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act's anti-injunction provision, as established in Boys Markets, does not permit an injunction against unions engaged in a work stoppage out of deference to another union's lawful picket line, especially when the work stop
• Hyster Co. v. Indep. Towing & Lifting Mach. Ass'n
  519 F.2d 89· 7th Cir.· 1975-07-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the work stoppages, resulting from refusals to cross a stranger union's picket lines, did not give rise to an arbitrable issue under the collective bargaining agreements, and therefore the Boys Markets exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not apply.
• Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  494 F.2d 726· 3d Cir.· 1974-03-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Bethlehem was not contractually obligated to accept Mr. Shadden as a permanent umpire, and the District Court did not err in enjoining a strike to enforce that demand.
• Bodine Produce, Inc. v. United Farm Workers Org. Comm.
  494 F.2d 541· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss was correct, affirming that the scope of the labor exemption from the Sherman Act must be considered in light of Hutcheson and subsequent cases, while acknowledging potential differences for agricultural wor
• S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. United Transp. Union
  491 F.2d 830· 9th Cir.· 1974-02-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the dispute over the interpretation and application of collective bargaining agreements was a 'minor dispute' within the jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, and thus the injunction against the strike was proper.
• Ramsey v. The United Mine Workers OF Am.
  481 F.2d 742· 6th Cir.· 1973-06-19 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove an antitrust conspiracy, holding that the district judge's findings were not clearly erroneous and that his prior statement regarding a potential conspiracy under a preponderance standard was dict
• The Morning Tel. v. Bertram A. Powers
  450 F.2d 97· 2d Cir.· 1971-10-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the orders denying the union's motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order were effectively preliminary injunctions and thus appealable. The court reversed the orders granting injunctive relief and affirmed the order denying jurisdiction.
• Sears v. Carpet
  410 F.2d 1148· 10th Cir.· 1969-05-15 ·cited 14×
  A charging party in a National Labor Relations Act § 10(l) injunction proceeding does not have standing to appeal the district court's decision when the National Labor Relations Board declines to appeal.
• Missouri-Illinois R.R. Co. v. Order OF Railway Conductors AND Brakemen
  322 F.2d 793· 8th Cir.· 1963-10-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a dispute over proposed changes in wage rates, even if related to an existing agreement, constitutes a 'major' dispute under the Railway Labor Act, over which the district court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin a strike after mediation processes are complete.
• Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists v. E. Airlines, Inc.
  320 F.2d 451· 5th Cir.· 1963-07-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that alleged violations of the collective bargaining agreement, including cancellation of vacations and extension of work weeks, constitute minor disputes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the System Board of Adjustment. A claim for damages for breach of contrac
• Kennedy v. The Long Island Rail Rd. Co.
  319 F.2d 366· 2d Cir.· 1963-06-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the railroad industry's Service Interruption Policy (strike insurance plan) does not constitute a per se violation of the Railway Labor Act, the Interstate Commerce Act, or the Sherman Act.
• Bhd. OF Locomotive Eng'rs v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.
  310 F.2d 513· 7th Cir.· 1962-11-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not deprive the district court of the power to grant an injunction pending appeal, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in doing so.
• A. L. Kornman Co. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Am.
  264 F.2d 733· 6th Cir.· 1959-02-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that federal district courts do not have jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act to enforce arbitration awards arising from individual employment contracts.
• Carpenters' Dist. Council v. Cicci
  261 F.2d 5· 6th Cir.· 1958-11-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction without making required findings of fact and conclusions of law, and without affording the defendant a full hearing on disputed factual issues.
• Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v. Randolph
  164 F.2d 4· 8th Cir.· 1947-11-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the issuance of a temporary injunction was erroneous because the dispute constituted a labor dispute within the purview of the Railway Labor Act and Norris-LaGuardia Act, requiring administrative resolution.
• East Texas Motor Freight Lines v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  163 F.2d 10· 5th Cir.· 1947-07-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff's suit involved a labor dispute, and thus, federal jurisdiction was limited by the Norris-LaGuardia Act, barring the requested injunction.
• Truck Drivers' Local NO. 421 v. United States
  128 F.2d 227· 8th Cir.· 1942-05-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that evidence was insufficient to impute the actions of a union's division to the union itself for Sherman Act liability, and also insufficient to find a business agent guilty of conspiracy.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd.
  349 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1965-06-29 ·cited 13×
  The court held that employees' concerted activities to persuade an employer to abandon racially discriminatory hiring practices are protected under Section 7 of the NLRA. However, the court remanded the case for the Board to consider the impact of an existing collective bargainin
• CSX Transp., Inc. v. United Transp. Union
  879 F.2d 990· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court correctly classified the dispute as minor under the Railway Labor Act, and therefore, the injunction barring strikes was proper, even though a subsequent arbitration award favored the unions.
• Cont'l Mar. OF SAN Francisco, Inc. v. Pac. Coast Metal Trades Dist. Council, Metal Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO
  817 F.2d 1391· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the project agreements did not subject the defendants to antitrust liability and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further discovery.
• Local 2750, Lumber & Sawmill Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. Cole
  663 F.2d 983· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not bar reinstatement as a remedy for wrongful discharge in a Section 301(a) suit, and that damages awarded were insufficient to make the employee whole.
• Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Reis
  614 F.2d 1110· 6th Cir.· 1980-02-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an injunction may be granted if a strike, initially over a non-arbitrable issue, transforms into a dispute over an arbitrable issue, but individual union members cannot be sued for damages under § 301 for violating a no-strike clause.
• Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Teamsters Local NO. 633
  511 F.2d 1097· 1st Cir.· 1975-02-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the employer's claimed injury from employees wearing tank-tops pending arbitration was not sufficiently irreparable to justify injunctive relief under the Boys Markets exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
• Nat'l Ass'n OF Women's & Child's. Apparel Salesmen, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  479 F.2d 139· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Federal Trade Commission improperly relied on a National Labor Relations Board decision to determine that NAWCAS was not a labor organization entitled to antitrust exemption.
• Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Commc'ns Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  454 F.2d 1333· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the dispute over the proposed staff structure, involving part-time employees and a separate seniority schedule, was arguably arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement, and thus the district court erred in denying injunctive relief based on its deter
• Chicago & Ill. Midland Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood OF Railroad Trainmen
  315 F.2d 771· 7th Cir.· 1963-03-08 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge believes the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibits the injunction because the employees' refusal to cross a picket line constitutes a labor dispute. The judge also questions the applicability of the Railway Labor Act.
• Sinclair Ref. Co. v. Atkinson
  290 F.2d 312· 7th Cir.· 1961-04-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Section 301 of the LMRA does not preclude suits against individual employees for inducing or participating in a strike violating a no-strike clause, and that the Norris-LaGuardia Act bars injunctive relief for such strikes absent a specific statutory mandate.
• Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. United R.R. Workers Div. OF Transp. Workers Union OF Am.
  271 F.2d 87· 2d Cir.· 1959-10-02 ·cited 12×
• Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Order OF Railroad Telegraphers
  264 F.2d 254· 7th Cir.· 1959-03-13 ·cited 12×
  A union's demand for veto power over the abolition of positions is not a mandatory bargaining subject under the Railway Labor Act, and therefore, the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not prohibit an injunction against a strike to enforce such a demand.
• Taxi-Cab Drivers Local Union NO. 889 OF Okla. City v. Yellow Cab Operating Co.
  123 F.2d 262· 10th Cir.· 1941-11-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that peaceful picketing and publicizing a labor dispute, even if involving secondary pressure, is protected speech under the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the Constitution, and thus an injunction against such activities was improper.
• Hinton v. Columbia River Packers Ass'n, Inc.
  117 F.2d 310· 9th Cir.· 1941-03-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the injunction was issued without jurisdiction because the case involved a labor dispute under the Norris-La Guardia Act, and the trial court failed to make the required findings of fact.
• Nursing Home & Hosp. Union NO. 434 Afl-Cio-Ldiu v. SKY VUE Terrace, Inc.
  759 F.2d 1094· 3d Cir.· 1985-04-10 ·cited 11×
  The court held that an injunction preventing a business from distributing its assets pending arbitration is permissible under federal labor law to ensure the arbitration process is not frustrated.
• Ky. W. Va. GAS Co. v. OIL
  549 F.2d 407· 6th Cir.· 1977-02-14 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding the arbitration and strike provisions mutually exclusive, and that the interpretation of whether Article I permits a strike over an arbitrable dispute is for the arbitrator.
• Itasca Lodge 2029 v. Ry. Express Agency Inc.
  391 F.2d 657· 8th Cir.· 1968-03-27 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a federal district court has the authority to issue an injunction to prevent a work stoppage over a 'minor dispute' under the Railway Labor Act, even if the dispute has not yet been formally submitted to the National Railroad Adjustment Board, to protect the B
• Limbach Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n, AFL-CIO
  949 F.2d 1241· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the traditional single employer doctrine is not entirely inapposite in the secondary boycott context and proposed a modified test for determining single employer status.
• Se. Pa. Transp. Auth. v. Brotherhood OF Railroad Signalmen
  882 F.2d 778· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a dispute over whether unions could engage in a sympathy strike was a 'minor dispute' under the Railway Labor Act, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending arbitration.
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. E. AIR Lines, Inc.
  826 F.2d 1141· 1st Cir.· 1987-08-18 ·cited 10×
  A district court lacks jurisdiction to issue a status quo injunction in a minor dispute under the Railway Labor Act, absent exigent circumstances.
• Richmond v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
  795 F.2d 1161· 4th Cir.· 1986-07-11 ·cited 10×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin peaceful secondary picketing in a labor dispute, even when it impacts neutral railroads, due to the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
• Nat'l Mar. Union v. Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp.
  737 F.2d 1395· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not grant federal jurisdiction, and thus the injunction was void; however, criminal contempt convictions are not affected by the injunction's invalidity, but the individuals were entitled to a jury trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3692.
• In re Crowe & Assocs., Inc. v. Bricklayers & Masons Union Local NO. 2 OF Detroit
  713 F.2d 211· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act's anti-injunction provisions apply to union strikes over pre-petition debt collection, even if such acts violate the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay, and that the Bankruptcy Reform Act did not supersede these provisions.
• Miller v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 498, AFL-CIO
  708 F.2d 467· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-14 ·cited 10×
  A district court has jurisdiction to order a hiatus in all picketing under § 10(l) only when presumptively legitimate picketing would perpetuate the effects of prior illegal activity.
• N. Stevedoring & Handling Corp. v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union
  685 F.2d 344· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a temporary restraining order enforcing an arbitration award in a labor dispute is subject to the procedural requirements of Section 7 of the Norris-La Guardia Act, and that wholesale adoption of one party's proposed findings without a hearing violates these r
• Kodiak OIL Field Haulers, Inc. v. Teamsters Union Local NO. 959
  611 F.2d 1286· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a strike settlement agreement rendered claims regarding employee discharge moot, but claims regarding arbitrator eligibility remained justiciable and were affirmed based on contract interpretation and industry practice.
• Hendrix v. Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs
  592 F.2d 437· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction under § 10(l) was appropriate, but its scope was overbroad and needed modification.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Comm. OF Interns & Residents
  566 F.2d 810· 2d Cir.· 1977-09-21 ·cited 10×
  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has preempted state jurisdiction over the labor relations of housestaff in voluntary hospitals, even if the NLRB determines they are primarily students and not employees entitled to collective bargaining rights under the NLRA.
• In re Union Nacional de Trabajadores
  502 F.2d 113· 1st Cir.· 1974-08-14 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3692 is too broad and not supported by legislative intent.