-
776 F.2d 374·
1st Cir.·
1985-11-08
The court held that the union's actions constituted an arbitrable grievance and a strike, justifying injunctive relief under the Boys Market exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act. However, the International Union was improperly included in the injunction.
-
633 F.2d 1307·
9th Cir.·
1980-12-12
The district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction against a strike when the underlying dispute concerns the interpretation of a no-strike clause, as per Buffalo Forge.
-
608 F.2d 767·
7th Cir.·
1979-12-17
A federal court cannot enjoin a sympathy strike when the sole dispute is whether the strike violates a no-strike clause, even if that violation is subject to arbitration.
-
580 F.2d 254·
7th Cir.·
1978-07-26
The court held that the district court properly granted a preliminary injunction under the Boys Markets exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act, as the collective bargaining agreement bound both parties to arbitrate and contained a no-strike clause violated by the Union's strike.
-
549 F.2d 173·
10th Cir.·
1977-02-03
The dissenting judge would grant the injunctive relief sought by appellants.
-
501 F.2d 456·
4th Cir.·
1974-05-21
The court held that the district court must hear and decide the unions' motions to dissolve the injunction before adjudicating the contempt motion.
-
449 F.2d 616·
6th Cir.·
1971-10-14
The court held that the Sherman Act does not apply to internal industrial disputes, even if they cause work stoppages, and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction.
-
423 F.2d 38·
5th Cir.·
1970-02-24
The court held that the arbitrability of whether contract terms like 'cargo' and 'longshore labor' encompass the loading of barges onto a LASH vessel is a question for the arbitrator, not the court.
-
416 F.2d 844·
6th Cir.·
1969-10-02
The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction because the conditions of Section 7(e) of the Norris-LaGuardia Act were not met, as there was no showing that public officers were unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.
-
404 F.2d 80·
7th Cir.·
1968-12-04
The court held that the dispute over whether a railroad must employ a fireman on a switching locomotive is a 'minor' dispute under the Railway Labor Act, and thus federal courts lack jurisdiction.
-
296 F.2d 453·
7th Cir.·
1961-11-08
The court held that a dispute over the interpretation and application of a proposed addition to a collective bargaining agreement, after the carrier accepted the proposed language, constitutes a "minor dispute" subject to compulsory arbitration under the Railway Labor Act, and th
-
268 F.2d 935·
9th Cir.·
1959-06-29
The court denied the petition for rehearing, declining to consider grounds not presented on the original appeal or grounds based on new facts.
-
232 F.2d 628·
9th Cir.·
1956-04-18
The court held that the appellant's complaint did not present a sufficient cause for equitable relief, thus affirming the dismissal.
-
184 F.2d 377·
7th Cir.·
1950-09-13
The court held that a labor dispute existed, rendering the Norris-LaGuardia Act applicable and depriving the district court of jurisdiction to issue the injunction without proper compliance.