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

• Quinn v. Digiulian
  739 F.2d 637· D.C. Cir.· 1984-07-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that punitive damages are not recoverable for a breach of the duty of fair representation, but that federal courts have jurisdiction over LMRDA claims even if the conduct also constitutes an unfair labor practice under the NLRA. A jury trial is available for both L
• Justak Bros. & Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  664 F.2d 1074· 7th Cir.· 1981-11-25 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order, including the Gissel-type bargaining order, was supported by substantial evidence and was not an abuse of discretion, and therefore enforced the order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lenkurt Elec. Co., Inc.
  438 F.2d 1102· 9th Cir.· 1971-02-10 ·cited 36×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the employer's pre-election statements were permissible predictions of economic consequences and not unlawful threats of retaliation, thus denying enforcement of the NLRB order.
• NIX v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  418 F.2d 1001· 5th Cir.· 1969-11-19 ·cited 36×·via Section 7 Concerted Activity
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the National Labor Relations Board's finding that employees Nix and Sewell were discharged for legitimate cause (pilfering documents and insubordination, respectively) and not for their union membership and activities.
• Carlisle Paper BOX Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  398 F.2d 1· 3d Cir.· 1968-07-17 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence and that the Regional Director's conduct regarding the election was not arbitrary or capricious.
• Signal OIL & GAS Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  390 F.2d 338· 9th Cir.· 1968-03-04 ·cited 36×
  An employer violates the NLRA by discharging an employee for expressing sympathy with a potential strike, even if the remark is made casually and to a single listener.
• Local 138, Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  321 F.2d 130· 2d Cir.· 1963-07-08 ·cited 36×
  The court held that charging non-members the same fees as members for referral services, without evidence of equivalent benefits, infringes upon employees' right to refrain from assisting labor organizations, violating the NLRA.
• Walls Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  321 F.2d 753· D.C. Cir.· 1963-06-06 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the record supported the Board's determination that the employee's conduct was protected activity under the NLRA, despite potential inaccuracies.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Linda JO Shoe Co.
  307 F.2d 355· 5th Cir.· 1962-08-07 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a company rule prohibiting employee solicitation and literature distribution on company premises during non-working time is unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act unless special circumstances justify it. The court also held that discharging an employe
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Harbison-Fischer Mfg. Co.
  304 F.2d 738· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-20 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the employer's interrogations of employees regarding their union activities constituted unlawful interference, restraint, and coercion under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Poole Foundry & Mach. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  192 F.2d 740· 4th Cir.· 1951-11-14 ·cited 36×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  A settlement agreement under the National Labor Relations Act should not be construed as an admission of guilt by the employer, especially when the Board failed to issue a complaint after investigation.
• Hoover Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  191 F.2d 380· 6th Cir.· 1951-07-09 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the discharge of union executive board members for continuing a boycott aimed at forcing employer recognition was lawful, as the boycott constituted an unprotected concerted activity.
• W. Cartridge Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  139 F.2d 855· 7th Cir.· 1943-12-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that it could only review the findings and remedies applied by the Board on the existing record, not hypothetical ones.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Franks Bros. Co.
  137 F.2d 989· 1st Cir.· 1943-07-27 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order to bargain was valid, even though the union may have lost its majority status due to voluntary employee departures, because the employer's prior unfair labor practices, including refusal to bargain and threats of plan
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Air Appliance Co., Inc.
  117 F.2d 417· 2d Cir.· 1941-02-03 ·cited 36×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court should fully enforce the Board's order without modification based on post-decision events.
• Physicians Nat'l House Staff Ass'n v. Fanning
  642 F.2d 492· D.C. Cir.· 1980-07-11 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction because the National Labor Relations Board's determination that house staff are not employees is not a clear violation of a mandatory statutory provision, and thus not reviewable under
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd.
  419 F.2d 216· 9th Cir.· 1969-11-19 ·cited 35×·via Section 7 Rights
  Employees engaging in concerted activity to protest employer's hiring practices must first go through their exclusive bargaining representative, and failure to do so deprives their activity of Section 7 protection, unless the employer waives this right.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Neuhoff Bros.
  375 F.2d 372· 5th Cir.· 1967-03-23 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by coercive interrogations and threats during an organizational campaign and by a discriminatory discharge, and that the employer's counsel's investigation tactics also violated the Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Citizen-News Co.
  134 F.2d 970· 9th Cir.· 1943-04-02 ·cited 35×
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. P*I*E Nationwide, Inc.
  923 F.2d 506· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-17 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the automatic stay provisions of the bankruptcy code do not apply to National Labor Relations Board proceedings, and that the Board's findings regarding Clement's discharges and back pay were supported by substantial evidence.
• AD ART, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  645 F.2d 669· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-09 ·cited 34×·via Section 7 Rights
  The National Labor Relations Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to defer to an arbitrator's decision when the unfair labor practice issue was not presented to or decided by the arbitrator. There was substantial evidence supporting the Board's finding that the employer
• Bloom v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  603 F.2d 1015· D.C. Cir.· 1979-08-09 ·cited 34×·via Section 7 Rights
  The National Labor Relations Board properly deferred to an arbitration panel's decision upholding an employee's discharge, as the arbitration proceedings met the Spielberg criteria.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Monroe Tube Co., Inc.
  545 F.2d 1320· 2d Cir.· 1976-11-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the employer's actions in encouraging employees to withdraw union authorization cards and interrogating them about union activities did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA due to a lack of substantial evidence of coercion. The court also declined to review
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Union Nacional de Trabajadores & its agent
  540 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1976-06-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Union committed unfair labor practices by threatening and assaulting employees, and that broad remedial orders were appropriate, but modified one order regarding property damage threats.
• Sperry Sys. Mgmt. Div. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  492 F.2d 63· 2d Cir.· 1974-02-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Union's attempt to enforce an arbitration award requiring the Company to apply terms of a New York City collective bargaining agreement to its California employees constituted an unfair labor practice, as it was a covert attempt to represent employees outs
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. RED TOP, Inc.
  455 F.2d 721· 8th Cir.· 1972-02-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the employees' conduct, including threats of physical violence and disloyalty to the employer's business interests, exceeded the bounds of protected activity under the Act, and thus their discharges were not unlawful.
• Sweeney & Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  437 F.2d 1127· 5th Cir.· 1971-01-25 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Board's finding that employee Hodges was a supervisor lacked substantial evidence, and thus his statements were not attributable to management. The court also found substantial evidence supported the Board's findings of unlawful interrogation and implied p
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Union Carbide Corp.
  440 F.2d 54· 4th Cir.· 1971-01-05 ·cited 34×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The dissenting judge would not enforce the Board's order for backpay and reinstatement.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. South BAY Daily Breeze
  415 F.2d 360· 9th Cir.· 1969-08-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Board's decision ordering the respondent to bargain should be reversed and a new election ordered, disagreeing with the majority's application of the 'Cumberland rule'.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Trw-Semiconductors, Inc.
  385 F.2d 753· 9th Cir.· 1967-11-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the employer's pre-election propaganda, which contained predictions of potential negative consequences of unionization, was protected speech under Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act and did not constitute an unfair labor practice.
• Beaver Valley Canning Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  332 F.2d 429· 8th Cir.· 1964-06-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the company's layoff and interrogation of employees did not violate the National Labor Relations Act, but the unilateral wage increase granted after the union filed a representation petition did.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dalton Brick & Tile Corp.
  301 F.2d 886· 5th Cir.· 1962-04-13 ·cited 34×·via Section 7 Rights
  An employer may lawfully use a lockout as an economic weapon during collective bargaining negotiations, provided it does not violate specific provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. DES Moines Foods, Inc.
  296 F.2d 285· 8th Cir.· 1961-11-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence, and thus the Board's order was enforceable.
• Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  284 F.2d 74· 9th Cir.· 1960-11-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the employer's denial of Christmas bonuses based on group productivity, even if caused by a strike, does not automatically constitute an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Syracuse Stamping Co.
  208 F.2d 77· 2d Cir.· 1953-11-10 ·cited 34×·via Section 7 Rights
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Poultry Enters., Inc.
  207 F.2d 522· 5th Cir.· 1953-11-04 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order to bargain is enforceable because the employer's refusal was not based on good faith doubt and the employer cannot benefit from its own unfair labor practices.
• Morand Bros. Bev. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  204 F.2d 529· 7th Cir.· 1953-05-28 ·cited 34×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the Board's finding of a permanent discharge, rather than a temporary layoff or lockout, was supported by substantial evidence, thus constituting an unfair labor practice.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dixie Shirt Co., Inc.
  176 F.2d 969· 4th Cir.· 1949-09-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order was valid and enforceable, finding substantial evidence supported its conclusions regarding unfair labor practices and the discriminatory discharge of an employee for union activity.
• Gulf States Mfrs., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  579 F.2d 1298· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-15 ·cited 33×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court, in a dissenting opinion, argues the Board properly considered withdrawn charges and found substantial evidence of unfair labor practices, including refusal to bargain in good faith.
• Bon-R Reproductions, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  309 F.2d 898· 2d Cir.· 1962-11-05 ·cited 33×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the Board's finding that Scrima's discharge was an unfair labor practice was not supported by substantial evidence when certain erroneous bases for the finding were removed.
• Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest.
  861 F.2d 1389· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-17 ·cited 32×·via 29 U.S.C. § 157
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the removed complaints and should have remanded them to state court. The dismissal of the first complaint should not have had claim-preclusive effect on the second.
• Fournelle v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  670 F.2d 331· D.C. Cir.· 1982-02-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that an employee's participation in strike-related activities, even after leaving work for personal reasons, can be grounds for discipline under a collective bargaining agreement's no-strike clause. It also held that parties to a collective bargaining agreement may
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Blevins Popcorn Co.
  659 F.2d 1173· D.C. Cir.· 1981-07-10 ·cited 32×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court concurred in the result because the Special Master apparently applied an erroneous standard of proof, necessitating remand.
• Anchortank, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  618 F.2d 1153· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-13 ·cited 32×
  An employee has a right to union representation at an investigatory interview after a union wins a challenged election, but not at an interview solely to deliver a previously made disciplinary decision.
• Pontiac v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  620 F.2d 122· 6th Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 32×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that an employer cannot be found to have committed an unfair labor practice by discharging an employee for protected activity unless the employer knew the activity was protected and concerted in nature. The case is remanded for findings on this knowledge.
• Carpenter Sprinkler Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  605 F.2d 60· 2d Cir.· 1979-08-17 ·cited 32×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the Board's finding of an unfair labor practice was unfair and unsupported by evidence, and that a tape recording impeaching a union representative should be admissible.
• Hecla Mining Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  564 F.2d 309· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-08 ·cited 32×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the employer's refusal to bargain did not constitute an unfair labor practice because the Board erred in setting aside the 1973 election based on isolated, mild statements by marginal supervisors.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Disposables
  494 F.2d 588· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board did not exceed its authority in issuing a complaint based on charges that were closely related to the original union's unfair labor practice charge, and that the employer suffered no prejudice from the denial of discovery.
• Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int'l Union, Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  445 F.2d 237· D.C. Cir.· 1971-05-27 ·cited 32×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board did not err in its findings of unfair labor practices and that senior operators were not supervisors, and that the Board's remedies were appropriate.
• Ill. Ruan Transp. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  404 F.2d 274· 8th Cir.· 1968-11-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that there was no substantial evidence to support the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the employee's discharge was motivated by protected union activity, as a valid contractual basis for discharge existed.