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. Mid-States Metal Prods., Inc.
  403 F.2d 702· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-13 ·cited 32×
  A collective bargaining agreement provision prohibiting employees from soliciting or distributing literature on company premises during non-working time on behalf of a rival labor organization is invalid if it infringes upon employees' Section 7 rights, absent proof of unusual ci
• King Radio Corp., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  398 F.2d 14· 10th Cir.· 1968-07-22 ·cited 32×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the employer's actions, including interrogating employees, promulgating a discriminatory no-solicitation rule, unilaterally changing working conditions, and retaliating against supervisors for testifying, constituted unfair labor practices under the National L
• Hughes & Hatcher v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  393 F.2d 557· 6th Cir.· 1968-04-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the company's interrogation of employees was not supported by substantial evidence and thus not a violation of the Act, but affirmed the Board's finding that the company unlawfully assisted the union by creating an atmosphere of coercion and withholding materi
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. DAN Howard MFG. Co. & Dan Howard Sportswear, Inc.
  390 F.2d 304· 7th Cir.· 1968-01-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while the Company committed certain unfair labor practices under Section 8(a)(1), the authorization cards of two employees were invalid, meaning the Union did not have majority support when recognition was requested, thus precluding an 8(a)(5) violation.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ford Radio & Mica Corp.
  258 F.2d 457· 2d Cir.· 1958-08-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that discharging employees for protesting a supervisor's discharge, or for participating in a walkout where the purpose of the walkout was not communicated to management, does not violate the National Labor Relations Act.
• Osceola Cnty. Co-Operative Creamery Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  251 F.2d 62· 8th Cir.· 1958-01-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the employer discharged employees due to union activity was not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Waterfront Employers of Washington
  211 F.2d 946· 9th Cir.· 1954-04-06 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board correctly found that the employers' association and unions violated the National Labor Relations Act by maintaining discriminatory hiring agreements and practices, and that the employers' association was responsible for the d
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. F. H. McGRAW & Co.
  206 F.2d 635· 6th Cir.· 1953-06-04 ·cited 32×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that while the company engaged in unfair labor practices by enforcing illegal hiring agreements and interrogating employees about union affiliation at the Paducah project, the order should be modified to apply only to that project due to lack of evidence of similar
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United States Cold Storage Corp.
  203 F.2d 924· 5th Cir.· 1953-04-23 ·cited 32×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court's majority affirmed the board's order, finding the company committed an unfair labor practice. The dissenting judge disagreed with this finding.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Walt Disney Prods.
  146 F.2d 44· 9th Cir.· 1944-12-05 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction over unfair labor practices affecting commerce, even if a collective bargaining agreement exists, and that discriminatory discharge can be inferred from circumstances. The court modified the Board's order reg
• Templeton v. Dixie Color Printing Co., Inc.
  444 F.2d 1064· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-26 ·cited 31×
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bangor Plastics, Inc.
  392 F.2d 772· 6th Cir.· 1967-04-11 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the employer's supplemental notice did not violate the settlement agreement and that the discharge of an employee was not motivated by anti-union discrimination.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. New Era Die Co., Inc.
  118 F.2d 500· 3d Cir.· 1941-02-26 ·cited 31×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence, and its order, with a minor modification, should be enforced.
• Glaziers & Glassworkers Local Union # 767 v. Custom Auto Glass Distribs.
  689 F.2d 1339· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that employers are precluded from asserting, as a defense to a section 301 action, that the union lacked majority status at the time of the collective bargaining agreement's execution, due to the preemption of this issue under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
• In re Bildisco v. Bildisco AND Bildisco
  682 F.2d 72· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 30×·via 29 U.S.C. § 157
  A debtor-in-possession may reject a collective bargaining agreement as an executory contract, but must demonstrate that continuation of the agreement is burdensome and that rejection will assist in reorganization, requiring a careful balancing of equities. The NLRB erred in findi
• Pacemaker Yacht Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  663 F.2d 455· 3d Cir.· 1981-10-30 ·cited 30×
  Employees' strike against their employer, when the grievance was solely with a separate health and welfare fund over which the employer had no control, did not constitute protected activity under Section 7 of the Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lantz
  607 F.2d 290· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings of single employer status, an appropriate bargaining unit, and violations of Sections 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the NLRA.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Retail Store Emps. Union, Local 876, Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n, AFL-CIO
  570 F.2d 586· 6th Cir.· 1978-01-11 ·cited 30×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that discharging an employee for refusing to testify for the employer in an unfair labor practice proceeding, due to lack of personal knowledge, violates Section 8(a)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act.
• D'Youville Manor v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  526 F.2d 3· 1st Cir.· 1975-11-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices, including discriminatory pay announcements, unlawful reprimands, and wrongful discharge, were supported by substantial evidence and that the denial of prehearing discovery was proper.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Columbia Tribune Publ'g Co.
  495 F.2d 1384· 8th Cir.· 1974-04-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by failing to bargain in good faith over the effects of technological change and by refusing to reinstate unfair labor practice strikers. However, the court modified the Board's remedy regarding reinstateme
• Food Store Emps. Union v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  476 F.2d 546· D.C. Cir.· 1973-03-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the employer should reimburse the union for litigation and organizational expenses due to its pervasive unfair labor practices, but denied claims for lost union dues and compensation for lost benefits.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc.
  406 F.2d 1173· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-28 ·cited 30×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the Board's order should be enforced as modified, limiting the injunction to conduct like or related to the violations found.
• Baumritter Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  386 F.2d 117· 1st Cir.· 1967-12-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the company's objections to the election and union certification were insufficient to warrant setting aside the election or denying enforcement of the Board's order.
• Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs, Local 49, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  353 F.2d 852· D.C. Cir.· 1965-11-04 ·cited 30×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court should affirm the Board's decision if it has a rational basis, even if the court would have decided differently.
• Roberts v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  350 F.2d 427· D.C. Cir.· 1965-07-21 ·cited 30×
  A labor union's imposition of a fine on a member for filing unfair labor practice charges with the Board, or for failing to exhaust internal union remedies before filing, constitutes an unfair labor practice under Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Phaostron Instrument & Elec. Co.
  344 F.2d 855· 9th Cir.· 1965-04-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by terminating employees who engaged in protected concerted activity and by refusing to reinstate them.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Miller
  341 F.2d 870· 2d Cir.· 1965-03-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the employer's statements to employees regarding an outside union were coercive and interfered with the formation of an inside union, and that the employer's no-solicitation rule was invalid, leading to a wrongful discharge.
• Metal Blast, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  324 F.2d 602· 6th Cir.· 1963-11-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the company unlawfully discharged an employee for union activities, rather than for cause, was supported by substantial evidence.
• Lincoln Bearing Co. & Lincoln Bearing Surplus Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  311 F.2d 48· 6th Cir.· 1962-12-26 ·cited 30×·via Section 7 Of The Act
  The court held that the interrogation of employees regarding their union activities, without accompanying threats or promises, did not constitute an unfair labor practice under the Act.
• ST. Louis Indep. Packing Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  291 F.2d 700· 7th Cir.· 1961-06-21 ·cited 30×·via Section 7 Rights
  An employer violates the National Labor Relations Act by continuing to bargain with an incumbent union and publicizing agreements after a rival union has filed for a representation election, thereby interfering with employees' right to choose their representative.
• Cleaver-Brooks MFG. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  264 F.2d 637· 7th Cir.· 1959-03-17 ·cited 30×·via Section 7 Of The Act
  The court held that the discharges were not protected concerted activity and the company's recognition of the Independent union was justified by a clear showing of majority support.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Am. MFG. Co., Inc.
  132 F.2d 740· 5th Cir.· 1943-01-13 ·cited 30×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that respondents were in contempt of a prior decree for issuing notices that interfered with employees' rights to self-organization, regardless of whether the notices actually had that effect.
• Interlake Iron Corp. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  131 F.2d 129· 7th Cir.· 1942-10-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of discriminatory layoffs due to union activities were not supported by substantial evidence, as the Board relied on impermissible inferences piled upon inferences.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Entwistle MFG. Co.
  120 F.2d 532· 4th Cir.· 1941-06-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of fact regarding the company's discriminatory discharge of an employee due to union activity were supported by substantial evidence, and the Board's order was valid and proper with a minor modification.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Martin A. Gleason, Inc.
  534 F.2d 466· 2d Cir.· 1976-03-03 ·cited 29×
  An employer's request for employees' statements to the Board violates § 8(a)(1) because it is inherently coercive and inhibits employee rights.
• W. Cartridge Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  134 F.2d 240· 7th Cir.· 1943-03-01 ·cited 29×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices, including company domination of a union and discriminatory discharge, were supported by substantial evidence and that the Board's order was valid.
• Lumber Prod. Indus. Workers Local # 1054 v. W. Coast Indus. Relations Ass'n, Inc.
  775 F.2d 1042· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the LMRA and that the union's state law tort claim was preempted by the NLRA.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Proler Int'l Corp.
  635 F.2d 351· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-26 ·cited 28×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the Board's finding of a discriminatory discharge during the January strike was not supported by substantial evidence, and thus the strike was not converted into an unfair labor practice strike. However, other unfair labor practice findings were affirmed.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ne. Okla. City Mfg. Co.
  631 F.2d 669· 10th Cir.· 1980-09-08 ·cited 28×·via Section 7 Concerted Activity
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board properly refused to defer to arbitration, found the employer's repeated late bonus payments to be an unlawful unilateral change and serious unfair labor practice, and that the resulting strike was protected, justifying reinst
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bighorn Beverage
  614 F.2d 1238· 9th Cir.· 1980-03-10 ·cited 28×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that an employer's use of application forms questioning union membership and interrogating employees about union sympathies violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. It also held that an employee discharged for union organizing activity is entitled to reinstatement, bu
• W-I Canteen Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  606 F.2d 738· 7th Cir.· 1979-09-25 ·cited 28×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the no-strike clause did not clearly and unmistakably waive the employees' right to engage in a sympathy strike.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. A. Lasaponara & Sons, Inc.
  541 F.2d 992· 2d Cir.· 1976-09-13 ·cited 28×
  The court enforced the National Labor Relations Board's order, finding that the employer engaged in unfair labor practices by withdrawing recognition from the union, making unilateral changes to employment terms, threatening employees, and discharging employees for protected acti
• Walgreen Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  509 F.2d 1014· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-21 ·cited 28×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court, in a dissenting opinion, argues against enforcing an administrative agency's order to bargain, finding the evidence insufficient and the agency's analysis lacking.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ark. Grain Corp.
  390 F.2d 824· 8th Cir.· 1968-03-12 ·cited 28×·via Section 7 Rights
  An employer does not violate Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to bargain if the union lacks majority status at the time of the demand, and a union's 'continuing demand' is ineffective if initially lacking majority support. A bargaining order is an extraordinary remedy reserved for egr
• N. Am. Rockwell Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  389 F.2d 866· 10th Cir.· 1968-02-14 ·cited 28×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence, except for the restriction of Carl White's phone privileges, and that procedural errors did not invalidate the Board's order.
• Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  339 F.2d 889· 6th Cir.· 1965-01-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that an employer's unlawful no-solicitation rule, combined with its own anti-union propaganda on company time and property, created an imbalance that justified the union's request for equal access, and that the NLRB's remedy should be modified to apply only to the
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. AIR Master Corp.
  339 F.2d 553· 3d Cir.· 1964-12-14 ·cited 28×·via Section 7 Rights
  An employer does not unlawfully interfere with employees' choice of bargaining representative by recognizing a union that demonstrably has majority support, even if an incumbent union claims continued majority status without proof.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sunbeam Lighting Co., Inc.
  318 F.2d 661· 7th Cir.· 1963-05-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish that a majority of employees struck, thus their conduct did not signify rejection of the employer's final offer.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Flemingsburg Mfg. Co.
  300 F.2d 182· 6th Cir.· 1962-03-21 ·cited 28×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the NLRB's finding of unfair labor practices and affirmed the Board's order.
• Del E. Webb Const. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  196 F.2d 841· 8th Cir.· 1952-05-06 ·cited 28×·via Section 7 Of The Act
  The court held that there was no substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the company and union entered into an illegal agreement or that the company discriminated against the complainants.