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. Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc.
  305 F.2d 807· 7th Cir.· 1962-07-17 ·cited 24×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the employer engaged in unfair labor practices by interrogating employees about union activities and dominating a labor organization, but modified the NLRB's order to be more specific.
• Summit Mining Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  260 F.2d 894· 3d Cir.· 1958-10-28 ·cited 24×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the employer violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) by discharging striking employees but did not violate Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to bargain, as the union offered alternatives and the employer chose one.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gate City Cotton Mills
  167 F.2d 647· 5th Cir.· 1948-04-16 ·cited 24×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the employer's actions, including surveillance and harassment of an employee involved in union activities, constituted unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Canyon Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  128 F.2d 953· 8th Cir.· 1942-06-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the petitioner's gold mining operations affect commerce and that the Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence, though a portion of the cease and desist order was too broad.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Delaware-N.J. Ferry Co.
  128 F.2d 130· 3d Cir.· 1942-04-29 ·cited 24×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board exceeded its discretion in defining a bargaining unit that included licensed officers and unlicensed crew, but otherwise enforced the Board's order.
• Am. Smelting & Ref. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  126 F.2d 680· 8th Cir.· 1942-03-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Board's findings of discriminatory layoff and delayed reemployment for Behney and Johnson were not supported by substantial evidence, but the order to cease dominating the employee association was sustained.
• N. Elec. MFG. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  123 F.2d 887· 6th Cir.· 1941-11-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that an employer's actions in allowing employees to listen to a union negotiation conference via loudspeaker, and questioning the union's majority status, did not constitute unlawful interference or coercion under the NLRA.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pac. GAS & Elec. Co.
  118 F.2d 780· 9th Cir.· 1941-03-28 ·cited 24×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Boss MFG. Co.
  118 F.2d 187· 7th Cir.· 1941-03-17 ·cited 24×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the respondent's conduct constituted a refusal to bargain collectively, demonstrating a lack of good faith and a fixed intention not to agree.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Washington-Oregon Shingle Weavers' Dist. Council
  211 F.2d 149· 9th Cir.· 1954-03-08 ·cited 23×·via Section 7 Of The Act
  The court held that a union's refusal to allow employees to work on non-union products, with the object of forcing the employer to cease using those products, constitutes an unlawful secondary boycott under Section 8(b)(4)(A) of the Labor Management Relations Act.
• Southwire Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  820 F.2d 453· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices, including coercive interrogations, threats, and discriminatory discharges/suspensions, were supported by substantial evidence and granted enforcement of the Board's order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Nueva Eng'g, Inc.
  761 F.2d 961· 4th Cir.· 1985-05-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the employer committed unfair labor practices by threatening employees with layoffs, interrogating an employee about union activities, surveilling employees, and discharging an employee due to her union support. The court also held that the employer was not en
• Local 1384 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  756 F.2d 482· 7th Cir.· 1985-02-25 ·cited 22×·via Section 7 Rights
  The Board erred by refusing to consider union efficiency as a factor in its balancing of interests under the NLRA.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 282
  740 F.2d 141· 2d Cir.· 1984-07-19 ·cited 22×
  A union breaches its statutory duty of fair representation when it arbitrarily fails to notify affected employees of an arbitration award that significantly alters their employment status.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Homemaker Shops, Inc.
  724 F.2d 535· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Board cannot find unlawful domination of a labor committee when the complaint and General Counsel at the hearing only alleged unlawful assistance, as this deprives the employer of proper notice and due process. Furthermore, the Board's findings of dominati
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Valley Plaza, Inc.
  715 F.2d 237· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-12 ·cited 22×
  The court enforced the National Labor Relations Board's order, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusions that the company engaged in unfair labor practices and that a bargaining order was an appropriate remedy.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Marion Rohr Corp., Inc.
  714 F.2d 228· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the employer committed unfair labor practices, the Board failed to provide adequate justification for a retroactive bargaining order, especially considering employee turnover and the passage of time.
• Auto. Salesmen's Union Local 1095, United Food & Commercial Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  711 F.2d 383· D.C. Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 22×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the NLRB's decision to overturn precedent and establish a new rule regarding supervisor discharges was a reasonable exercise of its discretion and consistent with the Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wilson-Crissman Cadillac, Inc.
  659 F.2d 728· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-17 ·cited 22×
  The Court enforced the National Labor Relations Board's order, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that the employee was not a supervisor or managerial employee.
• Pay'n Save Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  641 F.2d 697· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Pay'n Save violated the National Labor Relations Act by prohibiting union buttons and discharging employees for wearing them, and that a bargaining order was warranted.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gould, Inc.
  638 F.2d 159· 10th Cir.· 1980-10-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the employees' sympathy walkout in support of a lawful picket line was protected concerted activity under the NLRA, and the general no-strike clause did not waive this right.
• Kaynard v. Mego Corp. & Samet & Wells, Inc.
  633 F.2d 1026· 2d Cir.· 1980-09-12 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a temporary injunction under § 10(j) of the NLRA, finding reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices occurred and that the injunction was just and proper, though modified with time limits.
• Mosher Steel Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  568 F.2d 436· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Board erred in ordering reinstatement for Buruato and Wallace because their conduct was sufficient cause for dismissal and reinstatement would frustrate the Act's policies. However, the court affirmed the Board's finding that Mosher violated the Act by fai
• Johns-Manville Prods. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  557 F.2d 1126· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-19 ·cited 22×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the employees' conduct constituted an in-plant strike, justifying the company's lockout and hiring of permanent replacements.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Circle Bindery, Inc.
  536 F.2d 447· 1st Cir.· 1976-05-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an employee's actions in reporting the misuse of a union label, even if it causes the employer to lose work, can constitute protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.
• McDONNELL Douglas Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  472 F.2d 539· 8th Cir.· 1973-01-26 ·cited 22×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board failed to adequately balance employer security interests against employee organizational rights when invalidating McDonnell Douglas's no-solicitation/no-distribution rule.
• Daisy's Originals v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  468 F.2d 493· 5th Cir.· 1972-10-05 ·cited 22×·via Section 7 Rights
• Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Am., Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  420 F.2d 1296· D.C. Cir.· 1969-06-20 ·cited 22×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices, including coercive statements, discriminatory discharges, and refusal to bargain, were supported by substantial evidence and that the Board did not exceed its authority.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Atkins SAW Div. OF Nicholson File Co.
  399 F.2d 907· 5th Cir.· 1968-09-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of unlawful interrogation but not surveillance. The court also held that there was no substantial evidence that the discharge of employee Gunter was discriminatory.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hyde
  339 F.2d 568· 9th Cir.· 1964-12-15 ·cited 22×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that an employer's unilateral wage increase without notice to the union violates the duty to bargain and interferes with employee rights, and that the Board has jurisdiction to order an employer to honor a contract when its repudiation is part of an unfair labor pr
• Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  328 F.2d 25· 2d Cir.· 1964-02-27 ·cited 22×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence and that the petitions to set aside the order should be denied.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Floridan Hotel OF Tampa, Inc.
  318 F.2d 545· 5th Cir.· 1963-06-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that management's prohibition of union badges by customer-facing employees was not violative of the Act, as management has a right to manage its business and avoid potential customer irritation.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ochoa Fertilizer Corp.
  283 F.2d 26· 1st Cir.· 1960-10-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board cannot obtain broad injunctions against respondents based on a single offense or by consent stipulation alone, without a factual record supporting such breadth.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Anchor Rome Mills, Inc.
  228 F.2d 775· 5th Cir.· 1956-01-17 ·cited 22×·via Section 7 Of The Act
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order should be enforced, but amended to exclude certain individuals whose claims were not supported by substantial evidence or were procedurally barred.
• Commc'ns Workers OF Am. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  215 F.2d 835· 2d Cir.· 1954-09-22 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge holds that the Board's interpretation of the union security provision is unjustifiably harsh and contrary to the parties' intent and legislative history.
• Collins Baking Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  193 F.2d 483· 5th Cir.· 1951-12-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an employer's threat not to rehire employees if they went on strike, made before the strike occurred, constituted unlawful coercion under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. W. Ohio Gas Co.
  172 F.2d 685· 6th Cir.· 1949-02-21 ·cited 22×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board failed to present substantial evidence to support its findings of employer coercion, discrimination, and unlawful wage increases.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Scullin Steel Co.
  161 F.2d 143· 8th Cir.· 1947-04-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board exceeded its authority by ordering the employer to cease giving effect to a contract with a union that was not employer-dominated, even if the employer committed some unfair labor practices. However, the court affirmed the po
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sun Shipbuilding & DRY Dock Co.
  135 F.2d 15· 3d Cir.· 1943-03-31 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Board's findings of unfair labor practices were not supported by substantial evidence, particularly concerning employer domination of the Association.
• United States v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  948 F.2d 98· 2d Cir.· 1991-10-29 ·cited 20×·via Section 7 Rights
  The dissenting judge argues that the Consent Decree and the All Writs Act do not grant jurisdiction to an Administrator to adjudicate unfair labor practice charges, which should be handled by the NLRB.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Illinois-American Water Co. S. Div.
  933 F.2d 1368· 7th Cir.· 1991-06-07 ·cited 20×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by threatening employees with job loss and by refusing to recognize the union as the bargaining representative for computer center employees.
• Lapham-Hickey Steel Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  904 F.2d 1180· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings that the company failed to bargain in good faith before implementing its final offer and unlawfully refused to reinstate unfair labor practice strikers were supported by substantial evidence.
• Teamsters Local Union NO. 171 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  863 F.2d 946· D.C. Cir.· 1988-12-09 ·cited 20×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court affirmed the Board's findings of unfair labor practices, including threats, interrogations, unilateral changes, and discriminatory actions, based on substantial evidence. The court remanded the issue of a visitatorial clause for further Board consideration.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Creative Food Design Ltd.
  852 F.2d 1295· D.C. Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 20×
  The Board failed to consider the significant employee turnover and its impact on current employees' right to choose union representation when issuing a bargaining order, necessitating a remand.
• Fin. Inst. Emps. OF Am., Local NO. 1182, Chartered BY United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  752 F.2d 356· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-02 ·cited 20×
  The National Labor Relations Board's decision that nonmembers must be eligible to vote in a union affiliation election is rational and consistent with the National Labor Relations Act.
• United States Steel Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  711 F.2d 772· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 20×
  A broad no-strike clause, independent of an arbitration clause and supported by evidence of the parties' intent to ensure uninterrupted operations for competitive reasons, constitutes a clear waiver of an employee's right to engage in a sympathy strike.
• Baton Rouge Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, AFL-CIO v. E. C. Schafer Constr. Co., Inc.
  657 F.2d 806· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-02 ·cited 20×·via Section 7 Rights
  Prehire agreements in the construction industry are voidable and do not become enforceable collective bargaining agreements unless the union demonstrates majority support among the employees. An employer cannot unilaterally join a multiemployer bargaining unit and thereby transfo
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Donald E. Hernly, Inc.
  613 F.2d 457· 2d Cir.· 1980-01-14 ·cited 20×
  The court denied the National Labor Relations Board's petition for enforcement, finding its decision unsupported by substantial evidence on the record.
• Am. Cyanamid Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  592 F.2d 356· 7th Cir.· 1979-02-02 ·cited 20×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the Company committed unfair labor practices by unilaterally contracting out unit work without bargaining and by refusing to reinstate striking employees after an unconditional offer to return to work.
• Image Carrier Corp. v. Beame
  567 F.2d 1197· 2d Cir.· 1977-12-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the City's restrictive bidding policy, requiring unionized printers, was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest and thus violated equal protection principles.