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

• Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Union Local NO. 339 v. Creighton's Rest. Corp.
  115 So. 2d 30· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-10-07 ·cited 4×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  A Florida appellate court upheld a temporary injunction against a union's picketing and strike activities at a non-interstate-commerce restaurant, but narrowed the injunction by striking overly broad provisions that prohibited inducing strikes and barred all entry onto the premis
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mechanics Educ. Soc'y OF Am.
  222 F.2d 429· 6th Cir.· 1955-04-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the respondent unions violated the National Labor Relations Act by causing an employee's discharge.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Calcasieu Paper Co., Inc.
  203 F.2d 12· 5th Cir.· 1953-04-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Board's findings and order were supported by substantial evidence and granted the petition for enforcement.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Stratford Furniture Corp.
  202 F.2d 884· 5th Cir.· 1953-03-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board properly found that Stratford Furniture Corporation unlawfully discriminated against employees by denying leave and imposing disciplinary layoffs for union activities, and also unlawfully interrogated employees about their un
• Sw. Elec. Serv. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  194 F.2d 939· 5th Cir.· 1952-03-13 ·cited 4×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the union representative's conduct near the polling place interfered with a free and fair election, warranting setting aside the Board's order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.
  191 F.2d 217· 9th Cir.· 1951-08-20 ·cited 4×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the Cincinnati agreement did not require the re-employment of "wild cat" strikers who were not employees at the time of the agreement, and that an employer is entitled to discharge employees for cause.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Goodyear Footwear Corp.
  186 F.2d 913· 7th Cir.· 1951-01-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's findings that the employer closed its plant and laid off employees to discourage union activity, violating the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Arnolt Motor Co.
  173 F.2d 597· 7th Cir.· 1949-03-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that changes in business operations and employee composition after an unfair labor practice finding do not invalidate a prior bargaining order, and the Board's order should be enforced.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kinner Motors, Inc.
  152 F.2d 816· 9th Cir.· 1945-12-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order to cease and desist from interfering with employees' rights was overly broad and should be amended by striking the omnibus paragraph. The court also affirmed the Board's order for reinstatement of discharged employees
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. El Paso Elec. Co.
  133 F.2d 168· 5th Cir.· 1943-01-27 ·cited 4×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that El Paso Electric Company was not in contempt of a prior decree enforcing a Board order. The company's actions did not violate the decree's prohibition against dominating or supporting labor organizations.
• 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.
• Serv. Emps. Int'l Union Local 36, AFL-CIO v. City Cleaning Co., Inc.
  982 F.2d 89· 3d Cir.· 1992-12-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a union's action to enforce a grievance committee award under § 301 of the LMRA is governed by the analogous state statute of limitations for contract actions, not the six-month limitation period for hybrid § 301 actions.
• Sparks Nugget, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  968 F.2d 991· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Sparks Nugget violated the NLRA by bargaining in bad faith, but did not violate the Act by prohibiting nonemployee union representatives from picketing and handbilling on its property, as the Supreme Court's decision in Lechmere controls.
• United States Postal Serv. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  969 F.2d 1064· D.C. Cir.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The National Labor Relations Board's interpretation of Section 7 of the NLRA, extending the right to union representation at investigatory interviews to include pre-interview consultation, is a permissible construction of the statute and consistent with Supreme Court precedent.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hovey Elec., Inc.
  964 F.2d 543· 6th Cir.· 1992-05-13 ·cited 2×·via 29 U.S.C. § 157
  The court held that the company's threat of plant closure was supported by substantial evidence, but its statements regarding union impact on flexibility and the layoffs themselves were not. The court reversed the Board's findings on these latter points.
• George A. Hormel & Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  962 F.2d 1061· D.C. Cir.· 1992-05-08 ·cited 2×
  An employee's participation in a consumer boycott parade and rally, even if passive, constitutes disloyalty and is unprotected by the NLRA, allowing lawful discharge.
• Teamsters Local Union NOS. 822 & 592 a/w Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  956 F.2d 317· D.C. Cir.· 1992-02-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board failed to provide a reasoned explanation for departing from its prior precedent that an employer's breach of a strike settlement agreement constitutes an unfair labor practice under sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National La
• Reef Indus., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  952 F.2d 830· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an employer violated the NLRA by discharging an employee for creating and distributing a cartoon and letter that, while critical of management, were considered protected concerted activity related to an ongoing labor dispute.
• NEW River Indus. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  945 F.2d 1290· 4th Cir.· 1991-10-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the employees' mocking letter about free ice cream was not protected concerted activity under the NLRA, and the employer's decision to terminate them was not motivated by perceived union activity.
• Dep't OF Just. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.
  939 F.2d 1170· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-26 ·cited 2×·via 29 U.S.C. § 157
  The court held that while INS's conduct was coercive, the FLRA erred by not determining if the employee voluntarily chose to participate in the interview without representation, which is a necessary condition for the employer's third option.
• Elec. Data Sys. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  938 F.2d 570· 5th Cir.· 1991-07-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's determination of an appropriate bargaining unit was not arbitrary, capricious, or lacking in evidentiary support, and therefore enforced the Board's order.
• Cal. Elec. Co. v. Briley
  939 F.2d 790· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-25 ·cited 2×
  State law tort claims brought by an employer against former union employees are preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act when the duties alleged depend on the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
• Days INN Mgmt. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  930 F.2d 211· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-10 ·cited 2×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that an employer's use of a voter list during an election, when done for security purposes and with limited impact, does not constitute a per se violation of the National Labor Relations Act. However, threatening to reduce wages if a union wins is an unfair labor p
• Ymca OF THE Pikes Peak Region, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  914 F.2d 1442· 10th Cir.· 1990-09-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Rita Ague's harassing phone call to a sexual harassment victim, even if intended to assist a fellow employee, was not protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the Labor Act due to its abusive and indefensible nature.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Henry Colder Co.
  907 F.2d 765· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the employer violated the NLRA by discharging an employee for engaging in protected concerted activity, and that the employer's proffered reasons for the discharge were pretexts.
• Laborers' Local Union NO. 204, Laborers' Int'l Union OF N. Am., AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  904 F.2d 715· D.C. Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's decision to balance a union's right to handbill consumers against private property rights, and its subsequent dismissal of an unfair labor practice complaint, was based on a proper legal standard and reasonable accommodatio
• Hammontree v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  894 F.2d 438· D.C. Cir.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 2×
  The dissent argues that the National Labor Relations Board's interpretation of NLRA § 10(a) allowing deferral to arbitration for certain unfair labor practice claims is permissible and entitled to Chevron deference.
• LA Porte Transit Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  888 F.2d 1182· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that La Porte Transit Company violated the National Labor Relations Act by unilaterally implementing changes to its collective-bargaining agreement without bargaining to a good-faith impasse, and that its liability for these violations was not terminated by subsequ
• Grady Delling v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  869 F.2d 1397· 10th Cir.· 1989-03-10 ·cited 2×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that discharging a supervisor for refusing to falsify termination slips, which would have interfered with employees' rights to seek redress for unfair labor practices, constitutes an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Int'l Ass'n of Bridge
  864 F.2d 1225· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-08 ·cited 2×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court affirmed the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the NLRA by disciplining a member for filing unauthorized charges, applying the Wright Line test and rejecting the union's internal affairs defense.
• Manchester Health Ctr., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  861 F.2d 50· 2d Cir.· 1988-11-08 ·cited 2×
  A healthcare facility may, as part of a strike settlement agreed to by the union, limit employee discussion of union affairs to non-patient areas during non-work time to foster labor peace and protect patients.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Jasper Seating Co., Inc.
  857 F.2d 419· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that discharging employees for protesting working conditions constituted unlawful interference with protected, concerted activity under the NLRA.
• Teamsters Cannery Local 670 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  856 F.2d 1250· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the union's policy of affording fewer benefits to financial core members than to full members, absent discriminatory animus or impact on employment status, is permissible under the NLRA and not a violation of strike settlement agreements.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Chelsea Labs., Inc.
  825 F.2d 680· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-03 ·cited 2×
  The National Labor Relations Board's order finding an unfair labor practice for discharging an employee engaged in protected concerted activity is enforced.
• Dist. 30 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  819 F.2d 651· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the unions were responsible for the illegal picketing and coercion, affirming the National Labor Relations Board's order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local Lodge NO. 707
  817 F.2d 235· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order requiring publication of a notice in the union's journal was a reasonable affirmative action to remedy the union's violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
• The United Steelworkers OF Am. Afl-Cio-Clc v. Johnson
  799 F.2d 402· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that South Dakota's application of its unemployment statute, which pays benefits to non-union members during a strike while denying them to union members, does not impermissibly interfere with an employee's right to belong to a union.
• Bus. Servs. BY Manpower, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  784 F.2d 442· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 2×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that an employer may not discharge employees for refusing to cross a lawful stranger picket line if the employer's business justification is not sufficiently compelling, balancing employee rights under Section 7 against employer operational needs.
• Milk Drivers & Dairy Emps. Union v. Vevoda
  772 F.2d 530· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the defendants' defense based on alleged fraudulent inducement into union membership, as such matters are within the primary jurisdiction of the NLRB.
• Wesley v. I.T.O. Corp. OF R.I.
  739 F.2d 683· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-27 ·cited 2×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that a supervisor, like Wesley, is not protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and that his claims were properly dismissed.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Schroeder
  726 F.2d 967· 3d Cir.· 1984-01-23 ·cited 2×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board cannot conclusively presume an employer is liable for threatening statements made by a supervisor; agency principles must be applied, allowing the employer to rebut the presumption of agency.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Tamara Foods, Inc.
  692 F.2d 1171· 8th Cir.· 1982-11-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order finding that Tamara Foods unlawfully discharged employees for engaging in protected concerted activity was enforceable.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hudson Farms, Inc.
  681 F.2d 1105· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-01 ·cited 2×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that Hudson Farms' truck drivers and yard workers are employees, not agricultural laborers, under the Act, and therefore the Board's order is enforceable.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lummus Indus., Inc.
  679 F.2d 229· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-25 ·cited 2×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that discharging an employee for circulating a leaflet and conducting a survey aimed at evaluating and improving union representation, even if containing allegations of 'sellouts' or potential bribery made without knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for trut
• Sears v. Dep't OF THE Navy
  680 F.2d 863· 1st Cir.· 1982-06-16 ·cited 2×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the Navy's annual notice of the right to union representation was sufficient, even if provided after the employee's investigatory interview, as the employee failed to show substantial harm.
• ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  673 F.2d 228· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that ABF's overly broad rules prohibiting employee solicitation and literature distribution interfered with employee rights under the NLRA, and ABF failed to demonstrate special circumstances justifying these prohibitions.
• Timet v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  671 F.2d 973· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-01 ·cited 2×·via Section 7 Concerted Activity
  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.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Serv. Mach. & Shipbuilding Corp.
  662 F.2d 1125· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the discharge of employees for refusing to operate electrical equipment in the rain, due to fear of electrical shock, violated the National Labor Relations Act.
• Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  662 F.2d 56· D.C. Cir.· 1981-08-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's ruling completely invalidating Baylor's no-solicitation rule in its cafeteria and vending areas was not supported by substantial evidence and required further remand.
• MGM Grand Hotel-Reno, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  653 F.2d 1322· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the wage increase granted by the Hotel was justified by economic factors and was not an unfair labor practice, but other findings by the NLRB regarding interrogation, threats, invalid rules, and discrimination against Csonka were supported by substantial evide