Section 7 Concerted Activity

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

• The Colson Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  347 F.2d 128· 8th Cir.· 1965-06-14 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain with the union and by engaging in coercive activities, and that the union did not waive its right to file an unfair labor practice charge by proceeding to an election.
• ARO, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  596 F.2d 713· 6th Cir.· 1979-04-20 ·cited 56×
  The court held that an individual employee's complaints, made solely on their own behalf and lacking a colorable basis in the collective bargaining agreement, do not constitute protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.
• NIX v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  418 F.2d 1001· 5th Cir.· 1969-11-19 ·cited 36×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the National Labor Relations Board's finding that employees Nix and Sewell were discharged for legitimate cause (pilfering documents and insubordination, respectively) and not for their union membership and activities.
• W. Cartridge Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  139 F.2d 855· 7th Cir.· 1943-12-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that it could only review the findings and remedies applied by the Board on the existing record, not hypothetical ones.
• Anchortank, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  618 F.2d 1153· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-13 ·cited 32×
  An employee has a right to union representation at an investigatory interview after a union wins a challenged election, but not at an interview solely to deliver a previously made disciplinary decision.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ne. Okla. City Mfg. Co.
  631 F.2d 669· 10th Cir.· 1980-09-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board properly refused to defer to arbitration, found the employer's repeated late bonus payments to be an unlawful unilateral change and serious unfair labor practice, and that the resulting strike was protected, justifying reinst
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Circle Bindery, Inc.
  536 F.2d 447· 1st Cir.· 1976-05-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an employee's actions in reporting the misuse of a union label, even if it causes the employer to lose work, can constitute protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Coors Container Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  628 F.2d 1283· 10th Cir.· 1980-08-27 ·cited 19×
  The court held that Coors Container Company violated the National Labor Relations Act by prohibiting the display of a boycott sign, disciplining employees for displaying it, and interrogating them about their union sympathies.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Downslope Indus., Inc.
  676 F.2d 1114· 6th Cir.· 1982-04-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Board's order to reinstate supervisor Scarlett was improper because supervisors are generally excluded from the Act's protections, and the circumstances did not fit the narrow exceptions for such reinstatement.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Owners Maint. Corp.
  581 F.2d 44· 2d Cir.· 1978-07-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board properly refused to defer to an arbitrator's award and that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by discharging two employees for engaging in protected union and concerted activities.
• Brown & Root, Inc. v. The Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  634 F.2d 816· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the employees' refusal to work in perceived unsafe wet conditions constituted protected concerted activity under the NLRA, and their subsequent discharges were unlawful.
• MEL Croan Motors, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  395 F.2d 154· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the discharge of employee Ferstl was supported by substantial evidence of a violation of Section 8(a)(1), but the interrogation by service manager Sharp was not coercive and did not violate the Act. The court also limited the scope of the Board's order.
• E.I. DU Pont de Nemours & Co. (Chestnut RUN) v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  733 F.2d 296· 3d Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 13×
  The court granted the NLRB's motion to vacate its prior opinion and remand the case for further consideration, deferring to the Board's expertise.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. William S. Carroll, Inc.
  578 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1978-06-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the employer did not violate the National Labor Relations Act by discharging an employee for refusing to cross a picket line at a customer's premises, as the employer demonstrated a legitimate business reason for the dismissal and the Board failed to prove ant
• W. Addition Cmty. Org. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  485 F.2d 917· D.C. Cir.· 1973-06-29 ·cited 12×
  The National Labor Relations Act does not preclude minority employees from bargaining directly with their employer regarding racial discrimination issues, even if it conflicts with the union's exclusive bargaining status.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. I. Posner, Inc.
  304 F.2d 773· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Board's denial of the respondent's opportunity to present a defense regarding employee misconduct, after the Trial Examiner misled the respondent, was incompatible with procedural fairness.
• Montefiore Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  621 F.2d 510· 2d Cir.· 1980-04-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that doctors striking without notice engaged in protected activity unless it endangered patients, and their picket line conduct discouraging patients was unprotected. The denial of full-time positions in retaliation for filing charges was unlawful.
• D & D Distrib. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  801 F.2d 636· 3d Cir.· 1986-09-18 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge believes the National Labor Relations Board's finding of petitioner's knowledge of protected activities is not supported by substantial evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 139
  796 F.2d 985· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a union's internal charges and reporting a member to unemployment authorities, when not affecting employment status, do not violate the NLRA. However, refusing a member's reasonable request for job referral list information can breach the duty of fair represen
• Tri-State Truck Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  616 F.2d 65· 3d Cir.· 1980-02-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's conclusion that the employer knew its employees were engaged in protected concerted activity was not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Brookshire Grocery Co.
  919 F.2d 359· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-19 ·cited 4×
• Suburban Transit Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  536 F.2d 1018· 3d Cir.· 1976-06-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the employees' strike protesting the execution of the collective bargaining agreement was protected activity because the agreement's no-strike clause did not prohibit such a strike, and therefore, the employer did not commit an unfair labor practice by dischar
• Timet v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  671 F.2d 973· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an employee's actions, including expressing dissatisfaction with a raise and drafting a letter to organize colleagues, constituted protected concerted activity under the NLRA, and his discharge for these actions was an unfair labor practice.