Section 7 Of The Act

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

• Am. Newspaper Publishers Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  193 F.2d 782· 7th Cir.· 1951-12-27 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the International Typographical Union's (ITU) "no contract" policy and its associated actions constituted unfair labor practices under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pincus Bros.
  620 F.2d 367· 3d Cir.· 1980-04-17 ·cited 64×
  The dissenting judge argues that the Spielberg-Collyer doctrine, allowing the NLRB to defer unfair labor practice charges to arbitration, lacks statutory basis and undermines the Board's public policy function. The judge believes deferral is inappropriate for charges involving in
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  407 F.2d 1357· 4th Cir.· 1969-03-17 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by granting employee benefits (shift differentials and improved maternity leave) to influence an upcoming election, and by discharging employees for engaging in protected concerted activity related to workplace c
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Air Assocs., Inc.
  121 F.2d 586· 2d Cir.· 1941-07-09 ·cited 58×
  The court held that alleged bias of a trial examiner is immaterial if the Board ignores the examiner's report and relies solely on the evidence, and that changed circumstances did not warrant modifying the Board's order.
• United Packinghouse, Food & Allied Workers Int'l Union, Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  416 F.2d 1126· D.C. Cir.· 1969-02-07 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the employer's policy and practice of discrimination can constitute a violation of the Act if proven to be invidious and on account of race or national origin.
• Fla. Steel Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  587 F.2d 735· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-11 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order was not supported by substantial evidence, as the company had just cause to discharge the employee for negligence, and the Board failed to prove anti-union animus was the motivating factor.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Appalachian Elec. Power Co.
  140 F.2d 217· 4th Cir.· 1944-01-10 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the Labor Board's order to bargain was not binding because the Board made mistakes in establishing the bargaining unit and finding company interference, and the employer should not be forced to bargain with a repudiated union without substantial evidence of wr
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Swinerton
  202 F.2d 511· 9th Cir.· 1953-02-17 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding of unfair labor practices was supported by substantial evidence, and enforcement of the Board's order was appropriate.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. DES Moines Foods, Inc.
  296 F.2d 285· 8th Cir.· 1961-11-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence, and thus the Board's order was enforceable.
• Lincoln Bearing Co. & Lincoln Bearing Surplus Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  311 F.2d 48· 6th Cir.· 1962-12-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the interrogation of employees regarding their union activities, without accompanying threats or promises, did not constitute an unfair labor practice under the Act.
• Cleaver-Brooks MFG. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  264 F.2d 637· 7th Cir.· 1959-03-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the discharges were not protected concerted activity and the company's recognition of the Independent union was justified by a clear showing of majority support.
• Del E. Webb Const. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  196 F.2d 841· 8th Cir.· 1952-05-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that there was no substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the company and union entered into an illegal agreement or that the company discriminated against the complainants.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc.
  179 F.2d 589· 5th Cir.· 1950-01-30 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the Board erred in finding the company engaged in unfair labor practices by shutting down the plant and refusing to reinstate strike leaders, but agreed the company committed an unfair labor practice by failing to prevent an attack on a union representative.
• Union Carbide Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  714 F.2d 657· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that Union Carbide violated the Labor Management Relations Act by removing union notices from bulletin boards and confiscating union materials, but denied enforcement of the order regarding alleged threats about benefits due to insufficient evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Washington-Oregon Shingle Weavers' Dist. Council
  211 F.2d 149· 9th Cir.· 1954-03-08 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a union's refusal to allow employees to work on non-union products, with the object of forcing the employer to cease using those products, constitutes an unlawful secondary boycott under Section 8(b)(4)(A) of the Labor Management Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Anchor Rome Mills, Inc.
  228 F.2d 775· 5th Cir.· 1956-01-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order should be enforced, but amended to exclude certain individuals whose claims were not supported by substantial evidence or were procedurally barred.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. RED TOP CAB & Baggage Co.
  383 F.2d 547· 5th Cir.· 1967-10-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the employee's discharge was unlawfully motivated by protected concerted activities was not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
• R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  156 F.2d 416· 7th Cir.· 1946-06-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the employer's actions, including threats and intimidation by supervisors, constituted unlawful interference with employee rights under Section 8(1) of the NLRA, and that the demotion of a foreman was discriminatorily motivated by his union activity, violating
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kingston
  172 F.2d 771· 6th Cir.· 1949-02-21 ·cited 12×
  An employer's poll of employees regarding union preference, conducted in good faith and without threat of reprisal, does not constitute an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, even if the employer previously doubted the union's majority
• Trailmobile Division v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  407 F.2d 1006· 5th Cir.· 1969-02-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the majority erred in conducting a de novo review of the National Labor Relations Board's findings, failing to give proper deference to the Board's credibility determinations and inferences.
• Puerto RICO Drydock & Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  284 F.2d 212· D.C. Cir.· 1960-06-09 ·cited 10×
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Times-Picayune Pub. Co.
  130 F.2d 257· 5th Cir.· 1942-06-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the employer's order to reinstate an employee with back pay and seniority was not supported by evidence, but other parts of the Board's order were enforceable.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Off. Towel Supply Co., Inc.
  201 F.2d 838· 2d Cir.· 1953-01-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that unionizing activities are not protected under the Labor Management Relations Act if the employer is unaware of them. The dissent argues this interpretation undermines the Act's guarantees.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Citizen-News Co.
  134 F.2d 962· 9th Cir.· 1943-04-02 ·cited 7×
  The court, in a dissenting opinion, argues that the majority erred in rejecting the Board's findings of employer interference, restraint, and coercion, and in holding that a cease and desist order was unnecessary when the unfair labor practice had ceased.
• M.P.C. Plating, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  912 F.2d 883· 6th Cir.· 1990-09-04 ·cited 6×
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Perfect Circle Co.
  162 F.2d 566· 7th Cir.· 1947-06-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the forcible denial of an employer's right to access its property is equivalent to a seizure within the meaning of the Fansteel case.
• Kellstone Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  493 F.2d 1352· 6th Cir.· 1974-04-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and its legal conclusions were in conformity with applicable law.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme-Evans Co.
  130 F.2d 477· 7th Cir.· 1942-06-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while charges of bias against a trial examiner are reviewable, the record did not support the respondent's claims of unfairness or prejudice, and substantial evidence supported the Board's findings.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. NEW England Upholstery Co., Inc.
  268 F.2d 590· 1st Cir.· 1959-07-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that two of the Board's five findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, which was sufficient to uphold the Board's conclusion that the company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
• Dist. 50 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  237 F.2d 585· D.C. Cir.· 1956-10-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board has the authority to order an employer to cease recognizing a union that has not complied with the Act's filing provisions, even if that union is favored by employees.
• Halstead Metal Prods. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  940 F.2d 66· 4th Cir.· 1991-07-03
  The court held that the Administrative Law Judge erred by refusing to allow the employer to impeach the credibility of a key witness regarding her potential bias, and without this testimony, the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove an unfair labor practice.
• The A. S. Abell Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  598 F.2d 876· 4th Cir.· 1979-05-24
  The court held that the employer's refusal to hire a union member was justified by concerns over his potential involvement in recent union violence, and thus not an unfair labor practice.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fant Milling Co., Inc.
  308 F.2d 230· 4th Cir.· 1962-09-19
  The court held that there was not substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by discharging three employees for concerted activity.