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

• Fort Smith Broad. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  341 F.2d 874· 8th Cir.· 1965-03-04 ·cited 46×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the employer did not violate the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to recognize the union or by suspending and discharging an employee, as the evidence did not support the Board's findings of unlawful discrimination or coercion.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc.
  293 F.2d 300· 5th Cir.· 1961-07-24 ·cited 46×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the company violated Section 8(a)(1) by interrogating employees about union activities but did not violate Section 8(a)(3) by laying off employees, as economic reasons were the primary motivation. The Board's order was modified to be less broad.
• Coppus Eng'g Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  240 F.2d 564· 1st Cir.· 1957-01-16 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the Board's order requiring the company to disestablish the Shop Committee should not be enforced due to lack of evidence of company domination or interference.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. G. Boswell Co.
  136 F.2d 585· 9th Cir.· 1943-05-24 ·cited 46×
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
  133 F.2d 676· 9th Cir.· 1943-02-15 ·cited 46×
  The court held that Montgomery Ward & Company engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain in good faith with union representatives and by attempting to coerce employees during a strike.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Silver Spur Casino
  623 F.2d 571· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-27 ·cited 44×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that employers' withdrawal from a multi-employer bargaining unit does not extinguish the presumption of union majority support, and that employers must demonstrate a good faith reasonable doubt supported by objective considerations to rebut this presumption. The co
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. C. K. Smith & Co., Inc.
  569 F.2d 162· 1st Cir.· 1977-12-28 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the respondents, C. K. Smith & Co. and Buckley Heating Co., constitute a single employer under the National Labor Relations Act, and that their employees who engaged in a sympathy strike in support of unfair labor practice strikers are entitled to reinstatemen
• W. Exterminator Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  565 F.2d 1114· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-07 ·cited 44×
  The court held that while there was substantial evidence Hoffman played a role in the discharge, the antiunion animus was not the dominant or moving cause, thus denying enforcement of section 8(a)(3) and 8(b)(2) violations.
• Gary Hobart Water Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  511 F.2d 284· 7th Cir.· 1975-02-21 ·cited 44×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that employees honoring another union's picket line and engaging in a sympathy strike were engaged in protected activity, as their collective bargaining agreement did not clearly and unmistakably waive this right.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. A. W. Thompson, Inc.
  449 F.2d 1333· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-25 ·cited 44×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the National Labor Relations Board's findings that the employer engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to bargain in good faith and by unilaterally implementing a wage increase, thus enforcing the Board's order.
• MON River Towing, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  421 F.2d 1· 3d Cir.· 1969-12-22 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a company president's statement threatening business closure if a contract wasn't ratified, and allowing a supervisor to participate in contract negotiations and ratification efforts, constituted unfair labor practices under the NLRA.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gotham Shoe Mfg. Co., Inc.
  359 F.2d 684· 2d Cir.· 1966-01-14 ·cited 44×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices and its order to bargain were supported by substantial evidence and were enforceable.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
  276 F.2d 865· 7th Cir.· 1960-04-06 ·cited 44×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the Board did not err in determining the appropriateness of the craft bargaining unit, conducting the election, or refusing to consider the disaffiliation and no-raiding agreement defenses.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Rockwell Mfg. Co. (du Bois Division)
  271 F.2d 109· 3d Cir.· 1959-10-08 ·cited 44×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order to cease enforcing a no-distribution rule on company parking lots and its finding of unfair labor practices based on supervisory employees' interrogations of employees were not supported by substantial evidence and we
• Behring Int'l, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  675 F.2d 83· 3d Cir.· 1982-04-07 ·cited 42×
  The National Labor Relations Board's Wright Line rule improperly shifts the burden of persuasion to the employer in dual-motive discharge cases, contrary to statutory provisions requiring the General Counsel to prove unfair labor practices.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lloyd A. FRY Roofing Co.
  651 F.2d 442· 6th Cir.· 1981-06-10 ·cited 42×
  The court held that Fry violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by constructively discharging an employee for engaging in protected concerted activities related to safety concerns.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Am. Postal Workers Union
  618 F.2d 1249· 8th Cir.· 1980-03-31 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Union violated the National Labor Relations Act by arbitrarily revoking an employee's temporary schedule change and causing the Postal Service to terminate her assignment, but set aside the finding that the Postal Service violated the Act by acquiescing.
• Kaiser Eng'rs v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  538 F.2d 1379· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-29 ·cited 42×
  The court held that lobbying on national immigration policy by a professional society was not a protected activity under the Labor Act, as it did not concern the employer's treatment of employees or fall under the mutual aid exception.
• Peoples Serv. Drug Stores, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  375 F.2d 551· 6th Cir.· 1967-04-05 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while the employer committed unfair labor practices, its doubt regarding the union's majority status was made in good faith, thus reversing the Board's order to bargain.
• Local 57, Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  374 F.2d 295· D.C. Cir.· 1967-01-11 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board has broad discretion to fashion remedies for unfair labor practices, and its order requiring an employer to bargain with a union, even without re-establishing majority support among new employees, was within that discretion.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Blades Mfg. Corp.
  344 F.2d 998· 8th Cir.· 1965-05-10 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the company did not violate the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain or by discharging employees who engaged in intermittent walkouts, as the first election was validly conducted and the walkouts constituted unprotected concerted activity.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Prince MacAroni Mfg. Co.
  329 F.2d 803· 1st Cir.· 1964-03-31 ·cited 42×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices by coercively interrogating an employee, creating an impression of surveillance, and threatening discharge for union activities. However, it denied enforcement of the Board's order regarding the discharge of an
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Power Equip. Co.
  313 F.2d 438· 6th Cir.· 1963-02-15 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the employer's interrogation of an employee about union activities was not an unfair labor practice, but ordering employees to remove union insignia shirts without justification was an unfair labor practice.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Puerto RICO Rayon Mills, Inc.
  293 F.2d 941· 1st Cir.· 1961-08-29 ·cited 42×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the Board's order to cease and desist, rescind a notice, and reinstate specific employees was supported by substantial evidence and law, but remanded for further consideration regarding other reinstatement and back pay provisions.
• Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  230 F.2d 357· 7th Cir.· 1956-03-02 ·cited 42×
  The court held that suspending employees for wearing 'Scab' buttons was not a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because the buttons' inherent disruptive nature justified the employer's action.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Swinerton
  202 F.2d 511· 9th Cir.· 1953-02-17 ·cited 42×·via Section 7 Of The Act
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding of unfair labor practices was supported by substantial evidence, and enforcement of the Board's order was appropriate.
• Marshall Field & Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  200 F.2d 375· 7th Cir.· 1952-11-14 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the company's rule prohibiting non-employee union organizers from soliciting in employee cafeterias was valid, as employees were not uniquely handicapped in their self-organization efforts. However, the court found that solicitation should be permitted in Hold
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
  192 F.2d 160· 2d Cir.· 1951-10-29 ·cited 42×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the employee was discharged for union activity, and that certain interrogations and statements violated the Act.
• Home Beneficial Life Ins. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  159 F.2d 280· 4th Cir.· 1947-01-07 ·cited 42×
  The court held that agents who engaged in a strike are entitled to reinstatement, but those who continued working under their own terms, despite not reporting as required, were lawfully discharged and are not entitled to reinstatement.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gluek Brewing Co.
  144 F.2d 847· 8th Cir.· 1944-08-07 ·cited 42×
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. George P. Pilling & SON Co.
  119 F.2d 32· 3d Cir.· 1941-03-18 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain collectively and that the union's subsequent loss of majority support was a result of these practices.
• Midwest Reg'l Joint Bd., Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Am., Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  564 F.2d 434· D.C. Cir.· 1977-06-24 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the company violated the NLRA by interrogating employees, threatening them, conducting an unlawful poll, and discriminatorily eliminating benefits, but not by discharging Richard Mahoney, as his termination was justified by safety violations and insubordinatio
• Local 900, Int'l Union OF Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  727 F.2d 1184· D.C. Cir.· 1984-02-10 ·cited 40×
  The court upheld the National Labor Relations Board's new principle that superseniority for layoff and recall is lawful only for union officers involved in on-the-job contract administration, and that such rights are not waivable.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. G. K. Turner Assocs.
  457 F.2d 484· 9th Cir.· 1972-03-21 ·cited 40×
  The court held that unresolved factual issues regarding the company's objections to the election, stemming from alleged union misrepresentations and a misleading election notice, necessitate an evidentiary hearing.
• Indiana Gear Works v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  371 F.2d 273· 7th Cir.· 1967-01-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the employee's posting of cartoons ridiculing a wage increase was not a protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act because there was no evidence of intent to induce group action.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
  242 F.2d 497· 2d Cir.· 1957-03-18 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order finding Montgomery Ward engaged in unfair labor practices by discharging employees for union activity and interrogating employees about union membership should be enforced.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Essex Wire Corp.
  245 F.2d 589· 9th Cir.· 1957-02-28 ·cited 40×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that an employer's demand for union membership cards, prohibition of campaigning during rest periods, and discriminatory enforcement of a no-button policy constitute unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lummus Co.
  210 F.2d 377· 5th Cir.· 1954-02-12 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the respondent engaged in discriminatory hiring practices by adhering to the Carpenters' union hiring policies, thereby violating the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ky. Utils. Co.
  182 F.2d 810· 6th Cir.· 1950-06-07 ·cited 40×
  The court held that an employer is not required to bargain with a specific union representative if that representative has demonstrated extreme hostility and a desire to financially destroy the company, and the union has not insisted on that representative in writing. However, th
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bailey Co. (east Side Branch)
  180 F.2d 278· 6th Cir.· 1950-02-13 ·cited 40×
  The court held that promising economic benefits to employees before an election constitutes an unfair labor practice under the NLRA, even if other expressions of opinion are protected.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kropp Forge Co.
  178 F.2d 822· 7th Cir.· 1949-12-30 ·cited 40×
  The court held that statements made by employer representatives, even if not containing explicit threats or promises, can be considered as evidence of unfair labor practices when viewed in the context of the employer's overall conduct and surrounding circumstances.
• Jacksonville Paper Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  137 F.2d 148· 5th Cir.· 1943-07-09 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding of unfair labor practices, specifically discrimination in hire and tenure due to union activity, was supported by substantial evidence, even if some statements were within the employer's free speech rights.
• Trw-United Greenfield Division v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  637 F.2d 410· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-20 ·cited 39×
  The dissenting judge holds that the evidence does not support the Board's findings of unfair labor practices sufficient to set aside an election.
• Monongahela Power Co. v. Local NO. 2332 Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers
  484 F.2d 1209· 4th Cir.· 1973-10-02 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Boys Markets exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act applies, allowing injunctive relief to enforce arbitration of a work stoppage that violates a no-strike clause in a collective bargaining agreement.
• J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  406 F.2d 1017· 4th Cir.· 1968-12-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the employer's 'serious harm' notice, when viewed in the context of its history of unfair labor practices, constituted an unlawful threat to intimidate employees and deny them their rights.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Philadelphia Iron Works, Inc.
  211 F.2d 937· 3d Cir.· 1954-04-07 ·cited 38×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the union violated the National Labor Relations Act by maintaining and enforcing illegal hiring provisions and by causing the company to refuse employment to an applicant who bypassed the union's referral system.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Williams
  195 F.2d 669· 4th Cir.· 1952-04-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's determination of an appropriate bargaining unit was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, and that the respondents violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain and by discriminating against e
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Westex Boot & Shoe Co.
  190 F.2d 12· 5th Cir.· 1951-06-25 ·cited 38×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the Board had jurisdiction to issue a complaint that elaborated on the unfair labor practices alleged in the charge, and that the Board's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence.
• Courier-Citizen Co. v. Boston Electrotypers Union NO. 11
  702 F.2d 273· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-14 ·cited 37×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that an arbitrator's award supplementing an incomplete initial award is permissible under federal labor law, and that a contract provision giving preference to laid-off union members for non-unit jobs does not violate the NLRA. However, an award to a third party (S
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. L. Brandeis & Sons
  145 F.2d 556· 8th Cir.· 1944-11-06 ·cited 37×
  The court held that an employer has a right to disseminate facts and express opinions on labor matters, even if it expresses hostility to a union, as long as it does not violate the National Labor Relations Act.