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. Pizza Crust Co. OF Pa., Inc.
  862 F.2d 49· 3d Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 6×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court should not enforce the Board's order finding the company unlawfully interfered with union literature distribution, as the isolated instructions did not constitute a prohibited rule.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 73
  840 F.2d 501· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-22 ·cited 6×
  The National Labor Relations Board's construction of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as prohibiting a union from imposing restrictions on its members' right to resign, is reasonable and will be enforced.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe-Fitting Indus. of the United States & Canada
  827 F.2d 579· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-08 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that fining union members for crossing a lawful picket line at a common situs construction site, where no reserve gate was established, constitutes an unlawful secondary boycott under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Rest. Corp. OF Am. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  827 F.2d 799· D.C. Cir.· 1987-08-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Board's finding of discriminatory enforcement of the no-solicitation rule was not supported by substantial evidence because the permitted nonunion solicitations (for employee gifts) were not similar in their effect on plant discipline to union solicitation
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. OF Buffalo, Inc.
  811 F.2d 82· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-28 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by discharging an employee to discourage him and others from testifying in a criminal trial, even though the specific violation was not explicitly charged, because the issues were fully litigated.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dane Cnty. Dairy
  795 F.2d 1313· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 6×·via 29 U.S.C. § 157
  The court held that the respondents failed to show good cause for their untimely answer and that the Board's finding of alter ego status was supported by substantial evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. McEVER Eng'g, Inc.
  784 F.2d 634· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the employees' one-time work stoppage due to hazardous conditions was protected activity under the NLRA, and the employer violated the Act by discharging them. The court also affirmed the finding that Preston Ray was not a statutory supervisor.
• JMC Transp., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  776 F.2d 612· 6th Cir.· 1985-11-12 ·cited 6×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The dissenting judge would hold that the employee's individual complaint about an unloading payment did not constitute protected concerted activity, and his abusive conduct justified his discharge.
• Ewing v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  768 F.2d 51· 2d Cir.· 1985-07-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Board's literal interpretation of 'concerted activities' under the NLRA was mistaken and not required by the Act, remanding for reconsideration.
• Satterfield v. W. Elec. Co.
  758 F.2d 1252· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Act preempts a state-law tortious interference with contract claim when the conduct at issue is arguably protected or prohibited by the NLRA.
• Black Grievance Comm. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  749 F.2d 1072· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-13 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  An employer unlawfully interferes with employees' Section 7 rights by according one non-majority employee group privileged status over another non-majority group, thereby encouraging membership in the former and discouraging it in the latter, even if neither group seeks exclusive
• Iubac Local Union No. 31 v. Anastasi Bros. Corp.
  600 F. Supp. 92· S.D. Fla.· 1984-12-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendants did not waive their illegality defense by failing to timely move to vacate the arbitration award, as courts cannot enforce illegal contracts.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Stationary Eng'rs
  746 F.2d 530· 9th Cir.· 1984-10-30 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the union violated Section 8(g) by failing to provide the required date and time in its notice of intent to respect picket lines, and violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by disciplining members for crossing those lines.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Trailways, Inc.
  729 F.2d 1013· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the company's disparate enforcement of its no-solicitation/distribution rules and its penalization of an employee for attending a Board hearing constituted civil contempt of the court's prior order.
• Servair, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  726 F.2d 1435· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board properly refused to defer to an arbitration award because the arbitrator did not clearly decide the unfair labor practice issue, and the strike was protected activity in response to a serious unfair labor practice.
• Texaco, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  722 F.2d 1226· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the employer's actions did not constitute an unfair labor practice because employees were not deprived of free choice in deciding union participation.
• Itt Lighting Fixtures v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  719 F.2d 851· 6th Cir.· 1983-10-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an employee's request for a fellow employee to be present at an investigatory meeting is protected under Weingarten rights, even without a certified union, if the request is related to concerted activity. The court also held that an employer violated the NLRA
• G & H Prods., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  714 F.2d 1397· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-08 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  The dissenting judge believes the majority misconceived the appellate court's role in reviewing an administrative agency's conclusions, particularly regarding the discharges of three probationary employees.
• E. Chicago Rehab. Ctr., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  710 F.2d 397· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-27 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge argues that the 17 employees constituted a labor organization and their unauthorized strike at a healthcare facility violated the 10-day notice requirement under Section 8(g) of the NLRA, and that the majority's decision creates a dangerous precedent.
• In re Sewell
  690 F.2d 403· 4th Cir.· 1982-09-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a state law claim for tortious interference with contract against an employer's president for actions taken to challenge union certification is preempted by federal labor law, and thus the action must be dismissed.
• McLEAN Trucking Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  689 F.2d 605· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the NLRB's finding that employees were disciplined for engaging in protected concerted activity, and thus granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement of its order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Century Moving & Storage, Inc.
  683 F.2d 1087· 7th Cir.· 1982-07-21 ·cited 6×
• Silverman v. 40-41 Realty Assocs., Inc.
  668 F.2d 678· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-13 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  A temporary injunction under section 10(j) of the NLRA should not have been issued to permit interior picketing in an office building corridor, as this is an unprecedented application of the Act and not a 'just and proper' remedy.
• Pioneer Finishing Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  667 F.2d 199· 1st Cir.· 1981-11-23 ·cited 6×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order to reinstate employees should be enforced because the employee's distribution of a leaflet concerning working conditions constituted protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act, and the arbitrator's deci
• Bill Johnson's Rests., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  660 F.2d 1335· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order finding unfair labor practices was supported by substantial evidence and should be enforced.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gibraltar Indus., Inc.
  653 F.2d 1091· 6th Cir.· 1981-07-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the NLRB's findings of unfair labor practices against Gibraltar were not supported by substantial evidence, and thus enforcement of its order was denied. For Case, Inc., the court affirmed findings related to the discriminatory discharge of Anita Wilburn and t
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Doug Neal Mgmt. Co.
  620 F.2d 1133· 6th Cir.· 1980-04-08 ·cited 6×
  The court should enforce the National Labor Relations Board's order because substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge's findings of anti-union bias and unfair labor practices.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Union Nacional de Trabajadores & its Agent
  611 F.2d 926· 1st Cir.· 1979-12-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Union and its president were in civil contempt for violating prior court orders by publishing a side notice that undermined the purpose of a required notice and by threatening employees who continued to work during a strike.
• George Ryan Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  609 F.2d 1249· 7th Cir.· 1979-11-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board did not abuse its discretion by approving an informal settlement agreement over the objection of the charging parties, as remand for further explanation was unnecessary and the substantive objections lacked merit.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  603 F.2d 610· 7th Cir.· 1979-07-20 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that Westinghouse Electric Corp. violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by discriminating against striking employees regarding vacation pay, and modified the NLRB's cease and desist order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Meyer Label Co., Inc.
  597 F.2d 18· 2d Cir.· 1979-04-06 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the Board's determination of a separate bargaining unit for lithographic production employees was not supported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary, thus denying enforcement of the Board's order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Cameron Iron Works, Inc.
  591 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-12 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court denied enforcement of the NLRB's order, finding that the company and union did not commit unfair labor practices by continuing to deduct union dues.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers
  581 F.2d 473· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that removing a union officer for filing a charge against his employer, even if it could have been handled internally, violates the National Labor Relations Act by impeding access to the Board.
• Climax Molybdenum Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  584 F.2d 360· 10th Cir.· 1978-09-20 ·cited 6×
• Eisenberg v. Holland Rantos Co., Inc.
  583 F.2d 100· 3d Cir.· 1978-08-23 ·cited 6×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court affirmed the district court's grant and extensions of a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) and enforced the Board's order finding an unfair labor practice.
• Sta-Hi Division v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  560 F.2d 470· 1st Cir.· 1977-08-16 ·cited 6×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the employer committed a Section 8(a)(1) violation by announcing the cancellation of a wage increase due to union activity, but set aside the NLRB's order to make employees whole for lost wages.
• Eastex v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  550 F.2d 198· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-07 ·cited 6×
  An employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by prohibiting the distribution of a union-sponsored circular on company premises during non-working time and in non-working areas, if the circular's content is reasonably related to employees' jobs or their status as employees.
• McGRAW-Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  533 F.2d 1266· D.C. Cir.· 1976-04-19 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court affirmed the National Labor Relations Board's decision that the company engaged in unfair labor practices but modified the Board's order to be less overbroad.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Empire Corp.
  518 F.2d 860· 6th Cir.· 1975-06-18 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board had substantial evidence to find unfair labor practices and was warranted in issuing a bargaining order, even with a bare majority of authorization cards, due to the employer's coercive conduct.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kilgore Corp.
  510 F.2d 1165· 6th Cir.· 1975-02-13 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the Board's decision to set aside the election and order a new one.
• Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  486 F.2d 686· 1st Cir.· 1973-11-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the employees' civil action was not protected activity because it was filed in bad faith, and therefore their subsequent discharge did not violate the Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. The Freeman Co.
  471 F.2d 708· 8th Cir.· 1972-12-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while some coercive statements constituted unfair labor practices, the reduction in overtime hours was not supported by substantial evidence of discrimination.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Aclang, Inc.
  466 F.2d 558· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Aclang, Inc. violated sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to hire an employee due to her protected union activities and by threatening another employee with job loss for her vote on a collective bargaining agreement.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local Union NO. 180, United Bhd. OF Carpenters & Joiners OF Am., AFL-CIO
  462 F.2d 1321· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-22 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the Union's actions constituted unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act and enforced the Board's order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Cmty. Motor BUS Co., Inc.
  439 F.2d 965· 4th Cir.· 1971-03-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that mass picketing that blocked access to the work site exceeded permissible strike activity, relieving the company of its obligation to rehire the strikers, and that the dispute over reinstatement was not subject to arbitration due to the company's express reserv
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hudson Transit Lines, Inc.
  429 F.2d 1223· 3d Cir.· 1970-07-20 ·cited 6×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that an employer's imposition of wage and benefit reductions during a representation election, even if motivated by business concerns, constituted an unfair labor practice because it tended to discourage employees from exercising their rights to engage in concerted
• The Rocket Freight Lines Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  427 F.2d 202· 10th Cir.· 1970-06-12 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board properly dismissed the complaint because the employees crossed a valid picket line during an authorized strike, and thus could be lawfully disciplined by the union.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Darling & Co.
  420 F.2d 63· 7th Cir.· 1970-01-06 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the employer's withholding of severance pay from one group of employees while granting it to others, and its announcement of this decision, constituted unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Rexall Chem. Co.
  418 F.2d 603· 5th Cir.· 1969-10-30 ·cited 6×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the company's announcement of an improved vacation plan was an unfair labor practice intended to dissuade employees from unionizing, as there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Historic Smithville INN and Quail Hill
  414 F.2d 1358· 3d Cir.· 1969-07-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the National Labor Relations Board's findings that the Company engaged in unfair labor practices by surveillance, unlawfully discharging an employee due to union activity, and conducting a coercive poll of its employee