Norris-Laguardia Act

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

• Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S.A.
  233 F.2d 62· 9th Cir.· 1956-04-06 ·cited 4×
  Federal courts have jurisdiction to award damages for tortious picketing under state law, even if the picketing is peaceful, provided federal law does not offer a substantially similar remedy. However, judgments against unincorporated associations cannot be enforced against assoc
• Smotherman v. United States
  186 F.2d 676· 10th Cir.· 1950-12-30 ·cited 4×
• Bakery Sales Drivers Local Union NO. 33 v. Wagshal
  161 F.2d 380· D.C. Cir.· 1947-04-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act applies to cases involving labor disputes, regardless of the perceived legitimacy of the objectives or the legality of the conduct.
• Powell v. Nat'l Football League
  888 F.2d 559· 8th Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 3×
  The dissent argues that the nonstatutory labor exemption to antitrust laws should expire at impasse, not continue indefinitely.
• Doria v. Class Action Servs., LLC
  54 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2340· S.D. Fla.· 2009-08-17 ·cited 2×
  The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for attorneys' fees and costs, awarding $4,263.70 in taxable costs but denying sanctions under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
• Local 1814, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. NEW York Shipping Ass'n, Inc.
  965 F.2d 1224· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to enjoin arbitration when such arbitration would interfere with the court's ability to adjudicate a RICO consent decree. The court affirmed the district court's decision.
• Niagara Hooker Emps. Union v. Occidental Chem. Corp.
  935 F.2d 1370· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction against the employer's random drug testing program because it did not sufficiently frustrate the arbitral process.
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Transportes Aereos Mercantiles PAN Americandos, S.A.
  924 F.2d 1005· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Railway Labor Act's duty to bargain in good faith, codified in § 2 First, precludes a carrier from making unilateral changes in working conditions after negotiations have commenced, even without a prior collective bargaining agreement, if there is a histor
• Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n v. Local 1291, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO
  909 F.2d 754· 3d Cir.· 1990-07-27 ·cited 2×
  A union can only be subject to injunctive relief for a wildcat strike under section 301 of the LMRA if the picketing is attributable to the union through common-law agency principles, requiring proof of instigation, participation, or encouragement.
• Local Union NO. 733 OF the Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Division
  906 F.2d 149· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the union failed to demonstrate irreparable harm sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction against the employer's drug testing program pending arbitration, as traditional arbitral remedies could address potential harm.
• United Paperworkers Int'l v. ITT Rayonier, Inc.
  740 F. Supp. 833· M.D. Fla.· 1990-06-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the action was timely filed because the most analogous state statute of limitations, not the federal six-month statute, applies to actions to compel arbitration.
• Dist. 29 v. NEW Beckley Mining Corp.
  895 F.2d 942· 4th Cir.· 1990-02-08 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge believes the controversy does not constitute a 'labor dispute' under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and therefore an injunction was improperly issued.
• PAN Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  894 F.2d 36· 2d Cir.· 1990-01-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that intermittent work stoppages by union employees are permissible self-help measures under the Railway Labor Act after major dispute procedures have been exhausted, and that the RLA does not impose a time limit on such rights.
• United AIR Lines, Inc. v. Airline Division
  874 F.2d 110· 2d Cir.· 1989-05-04 ·cited 2×
  A union is not required to seek judicial enforcement of a carrier's bargaining obligation under the Railway Labor Act before engaging in secondary picketing.
• E. Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n
  710 F. Supp. 1342· S.D. Fla.· 1989-04-11 ·cited 2×
  Eastern Air Lines sought to enjoin the Air Line Pilots Association from engaging in a sympathy strike in support of the International Association of Machinists' lawful strike, arguing the sympathy strike was a pretext for ALPA's own primary strike in violation of the Railway Labo
• The Ass'n OF Contracting Plumbers OF the City OF NEW York, Inc. v. Local Union NO. 2 United Ass'n OF Journeymen & Apprentices OF the Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. OF the United States & Canada
  841 F.2d 461· 2d Cir.· 1988-03-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that trade line jurisdiction is a non-arbitrable issue under the collective bargaining agreements because the UA Constitution reserves exclusive authority to the UA to determine such matters, and affirmed the vacating of arbitration awards and injunctions based on
• Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Sys. Council U-4 v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  678 F. Supp. 257· S.D. Fla.· 1987-09-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was appropriate to preserve the arbitration process and prevent irreparable harm, outweighing the harm to the employer from a temporary delay in implementing a drug testing program.
• Dist. 30 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  819 F.2d 651· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the unions were responsible for the illegal picketing and coercion, affirming the National Labor Relations Board's order.
• Marine Transp. Lines, Inc. v. The Int'l Org. OF Masters
  770 F.2d 1526· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district courts lacked jurisdiction to issue preliminary injunctions because the cases involved labor disputes and the courts failed to make the required findings of unlawful acts under the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
• Painting & Decorating Contractors Ass'n OF Sacramento, Inc. v. Painters & Decorators Joint Comm. OF the E. BAY Cntys., Inc.
  717 F.2d 1293· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that jurisdiction under § 301(a) of the LMRA is not limited to labor disputes, and the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not preclude injunctions in such cases.
• United Parcel Serv. (NEW York), Inc. v. Local 804
  698 F.2d 100· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-06 ·cited 2×
  A Boys Markets injunction requires adherence to Norris-LaGuardia Act sections 8 and 9. Failure to determine if UPS utilized available expedited arbitration and issuing an overbroad prospective injunction warrants vacating the injunction.
• Waller Bros. Stone Co. v. United Steelworkers OF Am.
  620 F.2d 132· 6th Cir.· 1980-04-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the union's express reservation of the right to strike over wage rates, as interpreted in the context of the entire collective bargaining agreement, precluded the issuance of a preliminary injunction under the Boys Markets exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act
• Fed. Express Corp. v. Teamster Union
  617 F.2d 524· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act bars federal courts from enjoining peaceful picketing by a union when the employer is subject to the Railway Labor Act but no specific RLA procedures are violated by the union's conduct.
• SAN Juan Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Asociacion de Jinetes de Puerto RICO, Inc.
  590 F.2d 31· 1st Cir.· 1979-01-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that jockeys' collective refusal to race to increase compensation constituted an illegal effort to control prices through concerted action, and thus affirmed the preliminary injunction.
• Marriott Corp. v. Great Am. Serv. Trades Council, AFL-CIO
  552 F.2d 176· 7th Cir.· 1977-03-24 ·cited 2×
  The Norris-LaGuardia Act bars a preliminary injunction when the underlying dispute, though framed as trademark infringement, is fundamentally a labor dispute concerning employee representation.
• Consolidation Coal Co. v. Int'l Union
  537 F.2d 1226· 4th Cir.· 1976-06-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the injunction exceeded the limits of the Boys Markets exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act because the dispute involved the right of non-employees to picket, which was not an arbitrable grievance under the contract.
• S. Ry. Co. v. Doyle Combs
  484 F.2d 145· 6th Cir.· 1973-08-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires referral to the National Mediation Board to determine if Motor Transport is a 'carrier' under the Railway Labor Act before a federal court can enjoin picketing.
• L. A. Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Majich
  483 F.2d 524· 9th Cir.· 1973-07-12 ·cited 2×
• Brotherhood OF Locomotive Firemen AND Enginemen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
  423 F.2d 673· 9th Cir.· 1970-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the dispute between the railroad and the union was a minor or jurisdictional dispute, falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, and thus the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not prevent an injunction.
• Order OF Railway Conductors AND Brakemen v. Spokane
  366 F.2d 99· 9th Cir.· 1966-08-18 ·cited 2×
  The court should affirm the lower court's decision, as the dispute is a minor dispute under section 3, not a major dispute under section 6.
• NEW York v. Brotherhood OF Locomotive Firemen AND Enginemen
  358 F.2d 464· 6th Cir.· 1966-03-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the district court had jurisdiction to issue an injunction, it should have been conditioned upon the railroad seeking an immediate interpretation from the Arbitration Board regarding the method of job elimination.
• Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Brotherhood OF Locomotive Firemen AND Enginemen
  332 F.2d 850· 7th Cir.· 1964-06-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the dispute over transportation to a new tie-up point was a 'minor dispute' under the Railway Labor Act, allowing for injunctive relief despite the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
• Order OF Railway Conductors AND Brakemen v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co.
  331 F.2d 368· 5th Cir.· 1964-04-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibited the injunction because the threatened strike did not violate the Railway Labor Act.
• The Atchison v. Brotherhood OF Railroad Trainmen
  324 F.2d 902· 7th Cir.· 1963-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The court abstains from ruling on the injunction request pending appeal due to intervening Congressional legislation addressing the underlying labor dispute.
• Madison Shipping Corp. v. Nat'l Mar. Union
  282 F.2d 377· 3d Cir.· 1960-09-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief due to the applicability of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, as established by a Supreme Court precedent. The appeal was limited to controlling questions of law due to the procedural posture.
• Alesna v. Rice
  172 F.2d 176· 9th Cir.· 1949-01-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal courts should not enjoin territorial criminal prosecutions absent exceptional circumstances, as adequate remedies at law exist through appeal or prohibition.
• Farmers Grain Co. v. Toledo
  158 F.2d 109· 7th Cir.· 1946-11-20 ·cited 2×
  The court should affirm the dismissal of the railroad's cross-complaint and order the issuance of a mandatory injunction compelling the railroad to resume operation, reversing the order appointing a receiver.
• Nalco Co. LLC v. Bonday
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-11-12
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, a prerequisite for injunctive relief, and that the complaint lacked a sufficient basis for federal jurisdiction.
• Law Fabrication, LLC v. Local 15 of the Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n Bd. of Trs.
  396 F. Supp. 2d 1306· M.D. Fla.· 2005-10-06
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the LMRA because the plaintiff did not allege a violation of the contract, only its invalidity, and lacked jurisdiction under ERISA as the plaintiff was an employer. The court also found that if jurisdiction existed,
• Johnson ex rel. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sunshine Piping, Inc.
  N.D. Fla.· 2002-12-26
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board failed to demonstrate that injunctive relief was just and proper, despite reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices occurred, and therefore denied the petition for a temporary injunction.
• Miller v. Cal. Pac. Med. Ctr.
  991 F.2d 536· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-13
  The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred by applying an incorrect legal standard for issuing a preliminary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, failing to properly consider traditional equitable factors.
• In re Detroit Auto Dealers Ass'n, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  955 F.2d 457· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-31
  The court should affirm the FTC's decision in its entirety, as its factual findings are supported by evidence and its legal conclusions are not erroneous.
• Congreso de Uniones Industriales de Puerto RICO v. V.C.S. Nat'l Packing Co., Inc.
  953 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-12-27
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibits injunctions in labor disputes, and the exception for injunctions in aid of arbitration does not apply when arbitration has not been sought.
• Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Sys. Council U-4 v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  784 F. Supp. 854· S.D. Fla.· 1991-12-16
  A union is not entitled to a preliminary injunction to prevent employer layoffs and reassignments when the employer has broad management rights under the collective bargaining agreement and the potential harm to employees from layoffs and subsequent 'rolling' does not defeat the
• Ry. Labor Executives Ass'n v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co.
  914 F.2d 53· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-25
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction against the unions' picketing because the picketing sought to circumvent the exclusive procedures of the Railway Labor Act for resolving representation disputes, and the unions' opportunity
• Westmoreland Coal Co., Inc. v. Int'l Union
  910 F.2d 130· 4th Cir.· 1990-08-06
  The court held that the district court erred by not factually finding the cause of the work stoppage and that the work stoppage was not subject to the Boys Markets injunction exception.
• Catalytic, Inc. v. Monmouth & Ocean Cnty. Bldg. Trades Council
  829 F.2d 430· 3d Cir.· 1987-09-23
  A union's handbilling at a plant gate, which effectively induces a work stoppage and violates a collective bargaining agreement's no-strike clause, is not protected activity and can be enjoined, even if the union claims the dispute is with a third party.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local Union NO. 3, Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO
  828 F.2d 936· 2d Cir.· 1987-09-11
  The court held that a union's threat to strike, made in violation of the notice provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, is an unfair labor practice that the NLRB may enjoin, and such injunctions are not prohibited by the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
• Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood OF Maintenance OF WAY Employees
  795 F.2d 1169· 4th Cir.· 1986-07-11
• United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Kroger Co.
  778 F.2d 1161-1171· 6th Cir.· 1985-12-10
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction to prevent the sale of stores pending arbitration, as the union failed to demonstrate sufficient equitable grounds.