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

• Sutherland v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  646 F.2d 1273· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board properly asserted jurisdiction and that substantial evidence supported its finding that Maaco violated section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by discharging an employee for protected concerted activity.
• Blaw-Knox Foundry & Mill Mach. Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  646 F.2d 113· 4th Cir.· 1981-04-07 ·cited 2×
  An individual employee's actions protesting alleged sexual harassment, without intent to enlist group support or enforce a collective bargaining agreement, do not constitute protected concerted activity under the NLRA.
• Newport News Shipbuilding & DRY Dock Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  633 F.2d 1079· 4th Cir.· 1980-10-09 ·cited 2×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the National Labor Relations Board's decision regarding a decertification petition, as the Board's investigation, though selective, was not arbitrary.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mut. Maint. Serv. Co., Inc.
  632 F.2d 33· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-17 ·cited 2×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that while the employer violated the NLRA by discharging an employee for union activity, the employee's fraudulent conduct in collecting unemployment benefits disqualifies him from reinstatement with back pay.
• Nat'l Vendors v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  630 F.2d 1265· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-26 ·cited 2×
  The court should enforce the Board's order because the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence and strike a balance in accordance with national labor policy.
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  626 F.2d 119· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-21 ·cited 2×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that a union's refusal to grant unemployment stamps to nonmember employees, while granting them to members, constitutes discrimination that unlawfully encourages union membership, violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Markle Mfg. Co. OF SAN Antonio
  623 F.2d 1122· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-15 ·cited 2×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board was not precluded from litigating strike misconduct in a second case, despite a prior consent order, because the first proceeding did not make findings of fact regarding the alleged misconduct. However, the court limited the
• Puerto RICO Food Prods. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  619 F.2d 153· 1st Cir.· 1980-05-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the employees' work stoppage protesting their supervisor's discharge was not protected concerted activity under the NLRA because there was insufficient evidence that the protest was motivated by a legitimate concern for their own employment conditions.
• Robertson v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  597 F.2d 1331· 10th Cir.· 1979-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Act's exception for construction industry hiring hall agreements does not permit preference based on prior employment with any employer signatory to the agreement, but only with 'such employer' making the agreement.
• Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  593 F.2d 1290· D.C. Cir.· 1979-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the Board's order as it stands, finding it consistent with Supreme Court precedent.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. P. B. & S. Chem. Co.
  567 F.2d 1263· 4th Cir.· 1977-12-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the employer did not violate the National Labor Relations Act by discharging three employees, as their conduct did not constitute protected concerted activity and the employer's questioning of employees about union cards was not coercive.
• Eastex v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  556 F.2d 1280· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that its prior decision correctly applied the balancing test required by the National Labor Relations Act, even though it initially referenced the First Amendment.
• Oshkosh Truck Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  530 F.2d 744· 7th Cir.· 1976-02-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board did not abuse its discretion in approving an informal settlement agreement with the Union, nor did its procedures deny the employer due process.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. B. D. Holt Co.
  516 F.2d 505· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the union's statements during the election campaign did not constitute misrepresentations of material fact sufficient to set aside the election.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dist. Lodge NO. 99 & Lodge No. 2139
  489 F.2d 769· 1st Cir.· 1974-01-03 ·cited 2×
  A union's debarment of former members from acquiring membership for post-resignation strikebreaking is not an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Crispo Cake Cone Co., Inc.
  464 F.2d 233· 8th Cir.· 1972-07-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Board's finding of an appropriate clerical bargaining unit was supported by substantial evidence, and a bargaining order was warranted despite a temporary reduction in staff.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  462 F.2d 201· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the union secretary-treasurer's remarks did not constitute unlawful coercion or restraint under the NLRA, as they were spontaneous and made in the context of a heated union meeting, not a directive from the Executive Board.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hicks-Ponder Co.
  458 F.2d 19· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the company violated Section 8(a)(1) by interfering with employee rights but did not violate Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) by discriminatorily discharging two employees.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transp., Inc.
  453 F.2d 193· 8th Cir.· 1971-12-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the respondents' refusal to bargain violated the Act because the union's request sufficiently defined the appropriate bargaining unit and the union possessed majority status.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Int'l Typographical Union
  452 F.2d 976· 10th Cir.· 1971-12-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a supervisor creating an impression of surveillance violates the NLRA, but only if the impression is justifiable and based on wilful conduct; it also held that supervisors' active participation in union affairs can constitute unlawful employer interference.
• Sears v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  450 F.2d 56· 6th Cir.· 1971-10-13 ·cited 2×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order finding Sears guilty of violating Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act was not supported by substantial evidence.
• J. A. Hackney & Sons, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  426 F.2d 943· 4th Cir.· 1970-05-20 ·cited 2×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the employer's reduction in workforce was not discriminatory because economic necessity left no reasonable alternative, despite prior anti-union statements.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 138
  380 F.2d 244· 2d Cir.· 1967-06-29 ·cited 2×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in adopting the Woolworth formula for back pay calculations and that the Union should have been allowed to amend its pleadings to present evidence on job availability and interim earnings.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dist. 65, Retail, Wholesale & Dep't Store Union, AFL-CIO
  375 F.2d 745· 2d Cir.· 1967-03-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Union's uninvited entry, disruption of work, and threats violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, justifying the NLRB's order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. A & B Zinman, Inc.
  372 F.2d 444· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-03 ·cited 2×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the Union and Employers committed unfair labor practices by causing an employee's discharge due to his union political activities.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lasko Metal Prods., Inc.
  363 F.2d 529· 6th Cir.· 1966-07-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's complaint scope is not limited to the specific details of the initial charge, allowing it to investigate related violations.
• Phelps-Dodge Copper Prods. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  354 F.2d 591· 7th Cir.· 1965-12-10 ·cited 2×
  The Court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order against the company for unfair labor practices was not supported by substantial evidence and therefore would not be enforced.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. HOD Carriers' Bldg. & Gen. Laborers' Union OF Am., Local NO. 652, AFL-CIO
  351 F.2d 151· 9th Cir.· 1965-09-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board properly asserted jurisdiction and that its findings and order were supported by substantial evidence.
• Local 1441, Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  326 F.2d 663· D.C. Cir.· 1963-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Board erred in dismissing the complaint without determining if a conspiracy existed, as such a conspiracy would violate the National Labor Relations Act.
• Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  325 F.2d 126· 7th Cir.· 1963-12-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was no substantial evidence to support the NLRB's finding that Westinghouse unlawfully changed its contractual grievance procedure by unilaterally adding a preliminary step.
• Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  311 F.2d 19· 7th Cir.· 1962-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board failed to meet its burden of proof in showing that the employer's reorganization of its printing operations violated the National Labor Relations Act.
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists, Local Lodge NO. 311, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  289 F.2d 451· D.C. Cir.· 1961-02-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Board's order finding the Union violated Section 8(b)(2) of the NLRA was not supported by the record, as intervening circumstances negated the presumption that the Union's continued picketing and listing after decertification were for illegal purposes.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. NEW England Upholstery Co., Inc.
  268 F.2d 590· 1st Cir.· 1959-07-08 ·cited 2×·via Section 7 Of The Act
  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×·via Section 7 Of The Act
  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.
• E. GAS & Fuel Assocs. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  162 F.2d 864· 6th Cir.· 1947-07-07 ·cited 2×
• Wilson & Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  162 F.2d 310· 8th Cir.· 1947-06-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plant guards, even when militarized or deputized, retain their status as employees under the National Labor Relations Act and that their affiliation with a union representing other plant workers, in a separate bargaining unit, does not violate public policy.
• P. H. Glatfelter Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  141 F.2d 631· 3d Cir.· 1944-03-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Board's findings of unfair labor practices, including discrimination against an employee for union activity and interference with employees' rights to self-organization, were supported by substantial evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Am. Laundry Mach. Co.
  138 F.2d 889· 2d Cir.· 1943-10-29 ·cited 2×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court granted the National Labor Relations Board's motion to enforce its order against the respondent employer.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Locomotive Finished Material Co.
  133 F.2d 233· 8th Cir.· 1943-02-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding of employer interference with employee rights was supported by substantial evidence and thus enforceable.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Germain Seed & Plant Co.
  134 F.2d 94· 9th Cir.· 1943-02-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence supported the National Labor Relations Board's findings that the employer dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of a labor union and contributed support to it, but not that the employer recognized the union as representati
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Newberry Lumber & Chem. Co.
  123 F.2d 831· 6th Cir.· 1941-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order should be enforced as modified, allowing for additional evidence regarding back pay calculations.
• Owens-Illinois Glass Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  123 F.2d 670· 6th Cir.· 1941-12-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order was not supported by substantial evidence, as the statements made by supervisory employees, when viewed in context, did not constitute unlawful interference, restraint, or coercion under the National Labor Relations A
• Diamond T Motor Car Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  119 F.2d 978· 7th Cir.· 1941-05-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the company's actions and statements did not constitute substantial proof of unlawful interference or domination of a labor union, and thus did not violate the National Labor Relations Act.
• Local 355 v. Pier 66 Co.
  599 F. Supp. 761· S.D. Fla.· 1984-12-14 ·cited 1×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the union's claims alleging employer interference in employee decertification efforts constituted unfair labor practices preempted by the National Labor Relations Board's exclusive jurisdiction, and that the union lacked standing for a RICO claim due to insuff
• Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  374 F.2d 693· 6th Cir.· 1967-04-03 ·cited 1×·via Section 7 Rights
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wilmapeg Indus. Corp.
  282 F.2d 890· 6th Cir.· 1960-09-30 ·cited 1×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court ordered the respondents to cease and desist from unfair labor practices and to take affirmative action to remedy violations of the National Labor Relations Act.
• Sec. Walls, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  80 F.4th 1277· 11th Cir.· 2023-09-05
  The Eleventh Circuit held that Security Walls unlawfully discharged employee Randall Kelley in retaliation for protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act, rejecting Security Walls's argument that Kelley's activities were unprotected because he did not use
• Diaz ex rel. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Prof'l Transp., Inc.
  855 F. Supp. 2d 793· M.D. Fla.· 2014-01-29
  The court granted the Regional Director's petition for a preliminary injunction, finding reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices occurred and that injunctive relief was just and proper.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Motorola, Inc.
  991 F.2d 278· 5th Cir.· 1993-05-26
  The court held that while threats to an employee's career for opposing a drug testing policy constitute unfair labor practices, minor interferences like temporary T-shirt prohibitions and bans on literature distribution by an outside political organization do not violate the Nati
• Wilson Trophy Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  989 F.2d 1502· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-08
  The court held that Wilson Trophy Company committed unfair labor practices by interrogating, reprimanding, and discharging an employee for engaging in protected concerted activity, and by prohibiting wage discussions and paycheck openings in the warehouse.