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

• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hart Bev. Co.
  445 F.2d 415· 8th Cir.· 1971-06-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Board's findings of unfair labor practices were not supported by substantial evidence, and therefore, the petition for enforcement of the Board's order, including the bargaining order, was denied.
• AHI Mach. Tool & DIE, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  432 F.2d 190· 6th Cir.· 1970-10-07 ·cited 8×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the employees' walkout in protest of a fellow employee's lawful discharge for assaulting a supervisor was not protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the NLRA, and they were not discharged or denied reinstatement.
• General Truck Drivers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  410 F.2d 1344· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-15 ·cited 8×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by coercing employees through threats of physical harm and intimidation, both to strike and to refrain from joining a rival union.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. World Carpets OF NEW York, Inc.
  403 F.2d 408· 2d Cir.· 1968-11-08 ·cited 8×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court vacated the Board's order and remanded the case, holding that the employer was entitled to present evidence of union misconduct and that the Board must consider the Act's policies and the delay in enforcement before issuing a bargaining order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  393 F.2d 265· 6th Cir.· 1968-04-18 ·cited 8×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that certain respondents were in civil contempt for violating a prior decree prohibiting violent and coercive conduct against employees, and outlined specific actions for them to purge the contempt.
• Elam v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  395 F.2d 611· D.C. Cir.· 1968-04-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the Company unlawfully discharged employees for engaging in protected concerted activity was supported by substantial evidence.
• Madison Brass Works, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  381 F.2d 854· 7th Cir.· 1967-07-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the employer's speech, poll, and unilateral wage increases constituted unfair labor practices, and that the employer's doubt of the union's majority was not in good faith.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Brownwood Mfg. Co.
  363 F.2d 136· 5th Cir.· 1966-07-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while predictions of economic consequences from unionization are protected speech, statements threatening discharge due to stricter work rules under unionization are not.
• Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  358 F.2d 656· 7th Cir.· 1966-03-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an employee who voluntarily joins a union may be subject to internal union discipline, such as fines, for crossing a picket line.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc.
  356 F.2d 955· 1st Cir.· 1966-03-02 ·cited 8×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence, and therefore, the Board's order was enforceable.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Trosch
  321 F.2d 692· 4th Cir.· 1963-08-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act by recognizing and entering into a collective bargaining agreement with a minority union, even if done in good faith, as it constitutes unlawful support and interferes with employees' rights.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am.
  321 F.2d 126· 9th Cir.· 1963-07-15 ·cited 8×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court granted the National Labor Relations Board's petition for enforcement of its order against the Union, finding substantial evidence supported the closed shop violation and the proposed remedy was reasonable.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Crystal Laundry & DRY Cleaning Co.
  308 F.2d 626· 6th Cir.· 1962-10-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the employer's secret polls of employees regarding union sentiment, in the absence of coercion or interference, did not constitute an unfair labor practice under the NLRA.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gibbs Corp. & S. Shipbuilding, Inc.
  297 F.2d 649· 5th Cir.· 1962-01-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the employer committed unfair labor practices by assaulting union organizers, the Board's order requiring the employer to protect all persons on its property from violence was overly broad.
• United Bhd. OF Carpenters & Joiners OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  286 F.2d 533· D.C. Cir.· 1960-12-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that there was no substantial evidence of violations of § 8(b)(4)(A) at Minneapolis and Royal Oak, and that the United Brotherhood was not responsible for the actions of its locals and councils. The court also found that the breadth of the Board's order was erroneo
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. McBRIDE
  274 F.2d 124· 10th Cir.· 1960-01-06 ·cited 8×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board cannot enforce an order based on conduct that does not directly or indirectly involve employees' Section 7 rights.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Commc'ns Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  266 F.2d 823· 6th Cir.· 1959-05-14 ·cited 8×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order was supported by substantial evidence and proper procedure, with a minor modification to remove vague language.
• United Steelworkers OF Am. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  243 F.2d 593· D.C. Cir.· 1956-11-23 ·cited 8×·via Section 7 Rights
  An employer commits an unfair labor practice by enforcing a no-distribution rule against employees if the employer itself distributes literature on company property, thereby negating the justification for the rule.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 169
  228 F.2d 425· 3d Cir.· 1955-12-09 ·cited 8×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order against the union should be enforced, finding that the union committed unfair labor practices by threatening employees and unlawfully causing an employee's discharge.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Carpet
  213 F.2d 49· 10th Cir.· 1954-05-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board had jurisdiction and that its order should be enforced, as the unfair labor practice affected commerce and was supported by substantial evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines
  209 F.2d 622· 5th Cir.· 1954-01-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the employer unlawfully favored an independent union, it did not unlawfully dominate or interfere with its formation or administration, and thus modified the Board's order accordingly.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Jamestown Veneer & Plywood Corp.
  194 F.2d 192· 2d Cir.· 1952-02-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the employer did not violate the NLRA by refusing to reinstate four employees who quit in protest of short layoff notice, but enforced the order regarding one discharged employee.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. May Dep't Stores Co.
  162 F.2d 247· 8th Cir.· 1947-06-20 ·cited 8×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of fact, based on the evidence presented, are conclusive and not subject to review by the court.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Elyria Tel. Co.
  158 F.2d 868· 6th Cir.· 1946-12-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the employer's actions in announcing a wage increase without giving credit to the union and implying employees would not be penalized for non-union membership constituted unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Am. Pearl Button Co.
  149 F.2d 258· 8th Cir.· 1945-05-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order to cease and desist from enforcing rules prohibiting union activities on company property during employees' own time, and to reinstate employees discriminated against due to union activity or testimony, should be enfo
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. M. E. Blatt Co.
  143 F.2d 268· 3d Cir.· 1944-06-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the employer's notices, when considered with its other conduct, constituted unfair labor practices by interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
• Glen Alden Coal Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  141 F.2d 47· 3d Cir.· 1944-01-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board did not abuse its discretion in determining the foundry employees at the Exeter Shop constituted an appropriate bargaining unit, and the company's refusal to bargain was an unfair labor practice, even while its mines were und
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Polson Logging Co.
  136 F.2d 314· 9th Cir.· 1943-06-10 ·cited 8×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that there was substantial evidence of employer violations of the National Labor Relations Act, warranting enforcement of the Board's cease and desist and affirmative action orders.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Quality & Serv. Laundry, Inc.
  131 F.2d 182· 4th Cir.· 1942-11-06 ·cited 8×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices and its order for reinstatement and back pay were supported by substantial evidence and within the Board's discretion.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Times-Picayune Pub. Co.
  130 F.2d 257· 5th Cir.· 1942-06-12 ·cited 8×·via Section 7 Of The Act
  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.
• Colo. Fuel & Iron Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  121 F.2d 165· 10th Cir.· 1941-06-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the company's employee representation plan, even after revisions, constituted domination and interference with employee labor organizations, violating the National Labor Relations Act.
• J. Huizinga Cartage Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  941 F.2d 616· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-28 ·cited 7×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings that the company committed unfair labor practices by discharging employees for union activity and that the employees were not independent contractors. The court granted enforcement of the Board's order.
• Local 92 v. B & B Steel Erectors
  850 F.2d 1551· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-04 ·cited 7×·via Section 7 Rights
  A pre-hire agreement under Section 8(f) is voidable by the employer until the union establishes majority support, and repudiation can be effected by conduct that puts the union on notice of termination.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Swift & Co.
  233 F.2d 226· 8th Cir.· 1956-05-04 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the state court proceeding due to the prohibition in 28 U.S.C. § 2283, as the Board failed to meet any of the statutory exceptions.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Off. Towel Supply Co., Inc.
  201 F.2d 838· 2d Cir.· 1953-01-06 ·cited 7×·via Section 7 Of The Act
  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.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Algoma Net Co.
  124 F.2d 730· 7th Cir.· 1941-12-09 ·cited 7×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board had jurisdiction despite prior involvement of the Wisconsin Labor Relations Board, and that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's findings of unfair labor practices.
• Sullivan Indus. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  957 F.2d 890· D.C. Cir.· 1992-03-13 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court should defer to the Board's remedial choice to order bargaining despite a subsequent employee petition, as the employer's prior illegal refusal to bargain taints the petition.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. JOE B. Foods
  953 F.2d 287· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Joe B. Foods is a successor employer obligated to bargain with the union, and that the Board's determination of the bargaining unit and exclusion of certain employees was supported by substantial evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Aquatech, Inc.
  926 F.2d 538· 6th Cir.· 1991-02-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order finding Aquatech, Inc. violated the National Labor Relations Act by discharging employees for union activities is supported by substantial evidence and is enforceable.
• Berry v. Garza
  919 F.2d 87· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-15 ·cited 6×
  An employer who knowingly enters into a collective bargaining agreement is estopped from raising the defense of lack of majority status to avoid obligations to an employee benefit fund under ERISA section 515.
• M.P.C. Plating, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  912 F.2d 883· 6th Cir.· 1990-09-04 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Of The Act
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Springfield Hosp.
  899 F.2d 1305· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the hospital's actions in causing the arrest of off-duty employees were unlawful and interfered with union activity, and that the classification of medical technologists as professional employees was proper.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Oakes Mach. Corp.
  897 F.2d 84· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the discharge of an employee for sending a letter criticizing company management's diversion of resources was protected activity, but the retroactive application of a new definition of 'concerted activity' to another employee was improper, and a supervisor's d
• Lear Siegler Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  890 F.2d 1573· 10th Cir.· 1989-12-11 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that Lear violated the Act by unilaterally modifying noneconomic contract terms outside the scope of a reopener clause, but did not violate the Act by unilaterally modifying economic terms after reaching a good-faith impasse over a proposed wage decrease.
• Amazing Stores, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  887 F.2d 328· D.C. Cir.· 1989-10-20 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was justified in issuing a Gissel bargaining order despite significant employee turnover, as the pervasive nature of the employer's unfair labor practices was likely to continue to deter unionization.
• Roseville Dodge, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  882 F.2d 1355· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the employees' work stoppages were protected activities under the National Labor Relations Act, and the employer unlawfully discharged them for engaging in these activities.
• Baptist Med. Sys. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  876 F.2d 661· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-06 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the hospital did not violate the NLRA by ordering nonemployee union organizers to leave its public cafeteria, nor by questioning an employee about her union sympathies.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n
  873 F.2d 236· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-25 ·cited 6×
  A union constitution provision prohibiting resignation when charges are pending against a member violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act.
• Ind. Cal-Pro, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  863 F.2d 1292· 6th Cir.· 1988-12-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings of unfair labor practices, including threats of plant closure and coercive involvement in an anti-union petition, and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in issuing a bargaining order.