Section 7 Of The Nlra

664 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 436 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Golay & Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations
  371 F.2d 259· 7th Cir.· 1966-12-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Board was justified in ordering reinstatement for employees discharged during a strike, balancing their conduct against the employer's unfair labor practices, and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in setting the back pay commencement date.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Nw. Publ'g Co.
  343 F.2d 521· 7th Cir.· 1965-04-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain in good faith, unilaterally changing its distribution system, and discharging drivers to dissipate the union's majority.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gale Prods.
  337 F.2d 390· 7th Cir.· 1964-09-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the company's enforcement of a contract provision restricting solicitation on company property constituted an unfair labor practice.
• Melville Confections, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  327 F.2d 689· 7th Cir.· 1964-01-29 ·cited 16×
  Maintaining a profit-sharing plan that disqualifies employees for union representation is a per se violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, regardless of specific intent or proof of actual interference.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mayrath Co.
  319 F.2d 424· 7th Cir.· 1963-06-27 ·cited 16×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the employer unlawfully discharged employees for wearing union buttons, but not the probationary employee, Max Wells, whose discharge was unrelated to union activity.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. General Drivers
  264 F.2d 21· 10th Cir.· 1959-02-20 ·cited 16×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order requiring reimbursement of union dues checked off from employees was an appropriate remedy for the union's coercive conduct in withholding contractual benefits until employees signed union membership and checkoff auth
• Ohio Ferro-Alloys Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  213 F.2d 646· 6th Cir.· 1954-06-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the strike was illegal because it was initiated to force the company to commit an unfair labor practice by recognizing a union that had not been certified by the NLRB. Therefore, the company was within its rights to refuse reinstatement to the strikers.
• Cap. Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  204 F.2d 848· 9th Cir.· 1953-01-30 ·cited 16×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction over unfair labor practices affecting commerce, preempting state court injunctions in such matters. The unions' secondary boycott activities violated the Taft-Hartley Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Flotill Prods.
  180 F.2d 441· 9th Cir.· 1950-02-24 ·cited 16×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the Board's order should not be enforced because subsequent events, specifically the dismissal of the representation proceeding, rendered the order moot and its enforcement would thwart the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Stowe Spinning Co.
  165 F.2d 609· 4th Cir.· 1947-12-22 ·cited 16×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that compelling employers to allow union use of private facilities for organizing, when no other public space is available, constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property and violates the employer's property rights. However, the court found substantial evidence
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Winona Knitting Mills, Inc.
  163 F.2d 156· 8th Cir.· 1947-08-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Board's finding of constructive discharge for Linda Nelsestuen was not supported by substantial evidence, but other findings and the order regarding union recognition were permissible.
• Local NO. 2880 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  158 F.2d 365· 9th Cir.· 1946-11-22 ·cited 16×·via Section 7 Rights
  An employer cannot discharge an employee under a closed-shop agreement for acting as an observer for a rival union in a representation election, as this would violate the employee's right to choose their bargaining representative.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Clinchfield Coal Corp.
  145 F.2d 66· 4th Cir.· 1944-10-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the Board had substantial evidence to find the company discriminated against two employees for union activity and imposed discriminatory working conditions regarding rock car usage, there was insufficient evidence to support the disestablishment of the I
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Grieder Mach. Tool & DIE Co.
  142 F.2d 163· 6th Cir.· 1944-04-13 ·cited 16×
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sec. Warehouse & Cold Storage Co.
  136 F.2d 829· 9th Cir.· 1943-08-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices, including employer domination of a labor organization and discrimination against employees for union activities, were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the Board's order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Aintree Corp.
  132 F.2d 469· 7th Cir.· 1942-11-12 ·cited 16×
  The court should deny the Board's petition for enforcement because the findings of unfair labor practices are not supported by substantial evidence.
• Valentine Jurado v. Eleven-Fifty Corp.
  813 F.2d 1406· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-02 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of racial motivation for the English-only order and that his retaliation claim lacked evidence of protected activity, affirming summary judgment.
• Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  530 F.2d 137· 10th Cir.· 1976-02-11 ·cited 15×
  The court held that Groendyke's broad no-distribution rule was unlawfully promulgated and enforced, and that employee Bynum's discharge under that rule, as well as interrogations of employees about union activities, violated the National Labor Relations Act.
• Int'l Union OF Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  434 F.2d 473· D.C. Cir.· 1970-03-20 ·cited 15×
• Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  893 F.2d 1468· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-29 ·cited 14×
  The court granted in part and denied in part Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc.'s petition for review of a National Labor Relations Board order. The court affirmed the Board's finding that Kenrich violated section 8(a)(1) by discharging supervisor Helen Chizmar in retaliation for her r
• Roadmaster Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  874 F.2d 448· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an employee's act of signing another's name on a grievance, done in good faith to preserve the grievance and protect the union, constitutes protected concerted activity under the NLRA, even if it technically violates a company rule.
• Roadway Express, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  831 F.2d 1285· 6th Cir.· 1987-10-29 ·cited 14×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the employer's removal of bulletin boards was a reasonable response to the abuse of their use for threatening and insulting material, not an unfair labor practice.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Malta Constr. Co.
  806 F.2d 1009· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-22 ·cited 14×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order against Malta Construction Company for unfair labor practices was supported by substantial evidence and applied proper legal standards.
• United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. N.L.R.B.
  788 F.2d 178· 3d Cir.· 1986-04-16 ·cited 14×·via Section 7 Rights
  A charging party is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on its objections to proposed informal settlement agreements after a formal unfair labor practice complaint has been issued.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lorimar Prods., Inc.
  771 F.2d 1294· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-17 ·cited 14×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion by allowing an election to proceed while a request for review was pending, impounding ballots instead of requiring multiple ballots.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Norbar, Inc.
  752 F.2d 235· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-16 ·cited 14×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court affirmed the finding of an 8(a)(1) violation, reversed the 8(a)(3) finding for employee Green, and remanded the 8(a)(3) issue for employee Seitz.
• Local Union 59, Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. Green Corp. & Hutton Elec. Co.
  725 F.2d 264· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·cited 14×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that judicial review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly limited, and the arbitrator's decision, drawing its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, should be reinstated.
• The Trs. OF the Masonic Hall & Asylum Fund v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  699 F.2d 626· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's determination of a service and maintenance unit was appropriate, despite a weak articulation, because it balanced employee rights with the congressional mandate against undue proliferation in the health care industry.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Keystone Pretzel Bakery, Inc.
  696 F.2d 257· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-29 ·cited 14×
  The court enforced the National Labor Relations Board's order, finding substantial evidence supported the unfair labor practice findings and that a bargaining order was warranted despite employee turnover.
• United Steelworkers OF Am. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  692 F.2d 1052· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order against the Union should not be enforced because there was no finding that the employee's grievance had merit, making any backpay award speculative and punitive.
• Ervin Szewczuga and Gerald Treichel v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  686 F.2d 962· D.C. Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 14×·via Section 7 Rights
  An employer violates the NLRA by imposing disparate discipline on union officials for participating in an unprotected strike, absent explicit contractual provisions for higher duties or proof of strike leadership.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co.
  674 F.2d 618· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-17 ·cited 14×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the company violated Section 8(a)(1) by denying union representation to employees during investigatory interviews, but remanded the case to determine if the employee's discharge was for cause, precluding reinstatement and back pay.
• Mobile Mech. Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Carlough
  664 F.2d 481· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-21 ·cited 14×
  A union strike to compel an employer to submit to an arbitration board, effectively forcing the employer to act as if it were a member of a national employer organization, violates Section 8(b)(4)(A) of the NLRA, entitling the employer to damages. However, state law claims for da
• Fla. Steel Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  648 F.2d 233· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the company's showing of an anti-union videotape violated previous court orders prohibiting interference with employees' rights, and adopted the Special Master's recommended remedies for civil contempt.
• Brown & Root, Inc. v. The Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  634 F.2d 816· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-19 ·cited 14×·via Section 7 Concerted Activity
  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.
• Ontario Knife Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  637 F.2d 840· 2d Cir.· 1980-12-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an individual employee's walkout to protest a work condition, without prior or contemporaneous group action, does not constitute protected 'concerted activity' under the NLRA.
• Custom Recovery v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  597 F.2d 1041· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-02 ·cited 14×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the Board's findings of section 8(a)(1) violations based on a threatened discharge and an alleged interrogation were not supported by substantial evidence. The court also held it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's order for a second election.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Rubatex Corp.
  601 F.2d 147· 4th Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 14×
  The court should not enforce the Board's order requiring the company to pay $82,000 to union employees as it is an oppressive and punitive remedy.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Atlanta Printing Specialties & Paper Prods. Union 527, AFL-CIO
  523 F.2d 783· 5th Cir.· 1975-11-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that employees have a statutory right to revoke dues checkoff authorizations at the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, and this right cannot be abrogated by premature extension of the agreement.
• Donovan v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  520 F.2d 1316· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-25 ·cited 14×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that a union's misconduct during a strike does not necessarily preclude a Gissel bargaining order when the employer's unfair labor practices have made a fair election impossible.
• Textile Workers Union OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  475 F.2d 973· D.C. Cir.· 1973-02-01 ·cited 14×
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Raytheon Co.
  445 F.2d 272· 9th Cir.· 1971-06-23 ·cited 14×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court affirmed the Board's order finding unfair labor practices and enforced the order, but reversed the Board's finding of a promise of benefit.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Winkel Motors, Inc.
  443 F.2d 38· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices and discriminatory discharge were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the Board's order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transp. Co. OF Tex.
  438 F.2d 258· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an employer's practice of laying off reinstated economic strikers before permanent replacements, based on the order of their recall rather than objective criteria, constitutes unlawful discrimination under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Difco Labs., Inc.
  427 F.2d 170· 6th Cir.· 1970-05-19 ·cited 14×·via 29 U.S.C. § 157
  The court held that discharging employees for honoring a picket line, even if they are not members of the striking union, constitutes a violation of the NLRA if the activity is protected concerted activity for mutual aid or protection.
• Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  417 F.2d 1206· 6th Cir.· 1969-11-04 ·cited 14×·via Section 7 Rights
  The dissenting judge holds that there was insufficient evidence to establish an agency relationship between the former Mayor and the Company, and that the Board's order against the Mayor was improper.
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  415 F.2d 113· 8th Cir.· 1969-09-15 ·cited 14×·via Section 7 Rights
  A union cannot waive employees' Section 7 rights to distribute literature in non-work areas during non-work time through a collective bargaining agreement.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 282
  412 F.2d 334· 2d Cir.· 1969-07-03 ·cited 14×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that a union violates the National Labor Relations Act if it partially bases its decision to deny an employee seniority on the employee's anti-union activities, even if the employee was a supervisor at the time.
• Falcon Plastics-Division OF B-D Labs., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  397 F.2d 965· 9th Cir.· 1968-06-04 ·cited 14×·via Section 7 Rights
  The Board's determination that the employee's discharge was motivated by protected concerted activity, despite his conduct, was not illogical or arbitrary and thus must prevail.
• MEL Croan Motors, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  395 F.2d 154· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-17 ·cited 14×·via Section 7 Concerted Activity
  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.