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. Almet
  987 F.2d 445· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-03
  The court held that Almet, Inc. committed unfair labor practices by threatening, disciplining, and suspending employees to discourage union activity, and that the National Labor Relations Board's order for a new election was supported by substantial evidence.
• Oakwood Hosp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  983 F.2d 698· 6th Cir.· 1993-01-06
  The court held that the hospital discriminatorily enforced its anti-solicitation rule against a union organizer, violating the NLRA.
• Off. & Prof'l Emps. Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  981 F.2d 76· 2d Cir.· 1992-12-10
  Running for office in a local union that has no relation to an employee's terms and conditions of employment is not protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act.
• United Food & Commercial Workers Dist. Union Local ONE, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  975 F.2d 40· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-10 ·via Section 7 Rights
  The National Labor Relations Board properly determined that a union member's right to partially revoke their checkoff authorization for specific, separable payments is protected by the NLRA, and the union violated the Act by refusing to honor such a revocation.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Catalytic Indus. Maint. Co. (Cimco)
  964 F.2d 513· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-06 ·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's orders requiring CIMCO to bargain collectively and finding unfair labor practices were supported by law and substantial evidence.
• Equitable GAS Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  966 F.2d 861· 4th Cir.· 1992-06-02 ·via 29 U.S.C. § 157
  The court held that the Board erred in finding Equitable violated §§ 8(a)(1) and (a)(3) by retaliating against McHale and violated § 8(a)(5) by failing to bargain, but affirmed the finding of § 8(a)(1) violations for implied threats.
• Mo. Portland Cement Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  965 F.2d 217· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-26
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the company refused to hire Johnson due to union activity was not supported by substantial evidence.
• Gatliff Coal Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  953 F.2d 247· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-08 ·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding that Gatliff Coal Company unlawfully discharged two employees for engaging in protected concerted activities was supported by substantial evidence.
• Johnson v. Express ONE Int'l, Inc.
  944 F.2d 247· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-11
  The Railway Labor Act (RLA) does not provide a nonunion employee the right to have a co-worker present during an investigatory interview, unlike the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
• Halstead Metal Prods. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  940 F.2d 66· 4th Cir.· 1991-07-03
  The court held that the Administrative Law Judge erred by refusing to allow the employer to impeach the credibility of a key witness regarding her potential bias, and without this testimony, the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove an unfair labor practice.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. C.E. Wylie Constr. Co.
  934 F.2d 234· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-03 ·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that a National Labor Relations Board cease-and-desist order must be supported by findings demonstrating a likelihood of future violations at other sites or to other unions, and remanded for such findings if absent.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United Union OF Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local NO. 81, AFL-CIO
  915 F.2d 508· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-27
  The court held that a union's imposition of fines and reinitiation fees on members for signing a petition to decertify the union constitutes an unfair labor practice under the NLRA, even if the employer was involved in the petition's creation.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Int'l Union OF Elevator Constructors, AFL-CIO
  902 F.2d 1297· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-27
  The dissenting judge argues that an employee's refusal to cross a lawful picket line, even at a neutral gate, constitutes protected activity under Section 7 of the NLRA, and the Board's finding of a neutral gate was not supported by substantial evidence.
• Carpenters Local NO. 33 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  873 F.2d 316· D.C. Cir.· 1989-04-21 ·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court affirmed the Board's finding that the Union violated § 8(b)(4) because there was substantial evidence that the primary gate was not effectively hidden from the public.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Aces Mech. Corp.
  837 F.2d 570· 2d Cir.· 1988-01-22 ·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board abused its discretion by refusing to defer to a prior arbitral decision, as the arbitral panel had considered the facts relevant to the subsequent unfair labor practice charge.
• Int'l Union v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  834 F.2d 816· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-16
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's conclusion that Kawasaki's pre-election statements were lawful predictions of plant closure based on objective economic facts, rather than unlawful threats, was supported by substantial evidence.
• The United Steelworkers OF Am. Afl-Cio-Clc v. Johnson
  830 F.2d 924· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-07
  The court erred in concluding that South Dakota denied unemployment benefits based on union membership rather than the voluntary or involuntary nature of unemployment.
• Ruhen F. Lima v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  819 F.2d 300· D.C. Cir.· 1987-05-19 ·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's decision dismissing an unfair labor practice complaint was too conclusory and lacked sufficient reasoning for judicial review.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Laborers' Int'l Union OF N. Am., AFL-CIO
  810 F.2d 665· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-23 ·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the Union engaged in unfair labor practices was supported by substantial evidence, and enforced the Board's order.
• Herrick & Smith v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  802 F.2d 565· 1st Cir.· 1986-09-29
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board failed to meet its initial burden of showing that protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the employee's discharge, based on the record as a whole.
• Millwright & Mach. Erectors v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  798 F.2d 781· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-27
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board erred in finding a section 8(b)(1)(A) violation based solely on a union's internal discipline imposed without prior notice of a rule change, when that discipline did not affect the member's employment.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Health Care Logistics, Inc.
  794 F.2d 248· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-10 ·via Section 7 Rights
  The court enforced in part and denied in part the National Labor Relations Board's order against the employer for unfair labor practices.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. CER Inc.
  762 F.2d 482· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-10
  The court held that an employer's threats to discharge an employee for enforcing collective bargaining agreement work rules and presenting the employee with a choice between ceasing protected activity or termination constitute unfair labor practices under the NLRA.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Truckdrivers Union Local 164
  753 F.2d 53· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-22
  The court granted the National Labor Relations Board's application for enforcement of its order against Teamsters Local 164.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Methodist Hosp. OF Gary, Inc.
  733 F.2d 43· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-25 ·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the hospital's refusal to allow a union election in its cafeterias was an unfair labor practice because it was discriminatorily motivated, and the hospital's subsequent policy change did not render the enforcement petition moot.
• 'Totes' Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  688 F.2d 26· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-10
  The court held that throwing a firecracker at a supervisor's car during a strike is not protected activity under the Act, and the Board's determination to the contrary was arbitrary.
• Peninsula Shipbuilders' Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  663 F.2d 488· 4th Cir.· 1981-09-21 ·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the union's requirement for employees to use specific union forms for check-off revocations, as applied, unlawfully interfered with employee rights under the NLRA.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Med. Mut. OF Cleveland, Inc.
  659 F.2d 726· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-17
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order finding unfair labor practices was supported by substantial evidence and granted enforcement.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mich. State Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, AFL-CIO
  660 F.2d 1095· 6th Cir.· 1981-01-29 ·via Section 7 Rights
  The court ordered the Union to cease and desist from certain coercive actions and to take specific steps to comply with prior judgments and orders, including posting notices and filing compliance statements.
• The Timken Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  652 F.2d 610· 6th Cir.· 1981-01-08
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that an employee was discharged for union activities, but not its findings of other Section 8(a)(1) violations.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Glaziers & Glassworkers Local Union NO. 1621
  632 F.2d 89· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-10
  A union violates section 8(b)(1)(A) of the NLRA when it disciplines members for working for a neutral employer at a construction site, as this action restrains and coerces employees in exercising their Section 7 rights and frustrates national labor policy against secondary boycot
• Carlson Roofing Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  627 F.2d 77· 7th Cir.· 1980-08-06 ·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that suspending employees for protesting working conditions and supporting the union's position on crew size violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, but there was insufficient evidence to support a Section 8(a)(3) violation for antiunion motivation.
• ST. Regis Paper Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  623 F.2d 487· 6th Cir.· 1980-07-01 ·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that employees striking to compel an employer to commit an unlawful act are not protected by the Act, and the employer did not violate the Act by firing them.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Slotkowski Sausage Co.
  620 F.2d 642· 7th Cir.· 1980-05-08
  Unilateral attempts by an employee outside a bargaining unit to promote himself into the unit and a higher-paying position do not constitute protected concerted activity under the Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. McCAFFREY
  619 F.2d 620· 6th Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by discharging employees for engaging in protected concerted activity and refusing to reinstate them.
• The A. S. Abell Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  598 F.2d 876· 4th Cir.· 1979-05-24 ·via Section 7 Of The Act
  The court held that the employer's refusal to hire a union member was justified by concerns over his potential involvement in recent union violence, and thus not an unfair labor practice.
• Brewery Drivers & Helpers Local NO. 133 OF ST. Louis v. Grey Eagle Distribs., Inc.
  593 F.2d 288· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-07 ·via Section 7 Rights
  A union cannot sue for lost wages during a strike protesting an alleged contract breach if it failed to first pursue arbitration as provided in the collective bargaining agreement.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. ST. Joseph Hosp.
  587 F.2d 1060· 10th Cir.· 1978-11-30
  The court held that the hospital's no-solicitation and no-distribution rules were overly broad and violated the National Labor Relations Act, but the Board's order was too vague regarding 'immediate patient care areas'.
• Horwath v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  539 F.2d 1093· 7th Cir.· 1976-07-15
  The court held that a selective maintenance of membership clause, which includes only those employees who sought to withdraw from the union, is impermissibly coercive and interferes with freedom of association.
• Jeannette Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  532 F.2d 914· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-22 ·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the company's unwritten rule prohibiting employees from discussing wages was invalid on its face and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, and that the employee's discharge for violating this rule was unlawful.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. The Dayton Tire & Rubber Co.
  503 F.2d 759· 10th Cir.· 1974-09-23
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence and ordered enforcement of the Board's orders.
• Packerland Packing Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  494 F.2d 293· 7th Cir.· 1974-04-03 ·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that the company violated the Act by transferring employees due to union activity.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. W. T. Grant Co.
  455 F.2d 518· 6th Cir.· 1972-02-15 ·via Section 7 Rights
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 40, Int'l Ass'n OF Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO
  451 F.2d 119· 2d Cir.· 1971-11-05 ·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that the union committed an unfair labor practice by causing an employee's termination for non-membership, not for failure to pay dues under a valid union-security clause.
• Bendix-Westinghouse Auto. Air Brake Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  443 F.2d 106· 6th Cir.· 1971-05-25 ·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the company's savings and stock ownership plan, which excluded union-represented employees from participation unless the union waived its bargaining rights, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act when introduced during a union organizing
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thomas Prods. Co.
  432 F.2d 1217· 6th Cir.· 1970-10-28 ·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that substantial evidence on the record supported the Board's findings of Section 8(a)(1) violations by the employer.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Prof'l Tape Co., Inc.
  422 F.2d 989· 7th Cir.· 1970-03-05
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings that the company unlawfully interrogated employees and discharged an employee for union activities.
• Price Bros. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  422 F.2d 452· 6th Cir.· 1970-01-30
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's decision finding the company unlawfully discharged an employee was not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
• Cone Mills Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  413 F.2d 445· 4th Cir.· 1969-07-16
  The court held that the company violated the NLRA by refusing to provide necessary information regarding its proposed pension plan to the union, but that the discharge of eight employees for participating in an in-plant work stoppage protesting a fellow employee's discharge was n
• Food Store Emps. Union, Local 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen OF N. Am., AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  413 F.2d 407· D.C. Cir.· 1969-04-22 ·via Section 7 Rights
  The court affirmed the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices and its remedial orders, denying applications for review and modification.