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

• Heavenly Valley SKI Area v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  552 F.2d 269· 9th Cir.· 1977-01-19 ·cited 20×
• Cmty. Hosp. of Roanoke Valley v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  538 F.2d 607· 4th Cir.· 1976-07-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Board's conclusion that the Hospital engaged in unfair labor practices lacked substantial evidence.
• Kesner v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  532 F.2d 1169· 7th Cir.· 1976-04-08 ·cited 20×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that it has jurisdiction under § 10(f) to review serious legal objections that the NLRB has exceeded its authority, and that the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to fully advocate the employee's grievance, but affirmed the Board's denial of
• Local 1104, Commc'ns Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  520 F.2d 411· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-21 ·cited 20×·via Section 7 Rights
  Unions commit unfair labor practices by attempting to enforce agency shop clauses against employees denied full membership for reasons other than failure to tender dues.
• Bishop v. The Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  502 F.2d 1024· 5th Cir.· 1974-10-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the National Labor Relations Board's application of its 'blocking charge' rule was a reasoned utilization of a practice well-suited to the facts, not an arbitrary action exceeding statutory authorit
• Suburban Transit Corp. & H.A.M.L. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  499 F.2d 78· 3d Cir.· 1974-05-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the employer's recognition of UTU and expedited bargaining did not constitute an unfair labor practice against Suburban, but disagreed on the finding against H.A.M.L.
• Trico Prods. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  489 F.2d 347· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while Trico's supervisors' threats constituted coercion, the petition merely accelerated layoffs that would have occurred due to economic conditions, and thus, reinstatement and full back pay were not warranted.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. C & I AIR Conditioning, Inc.
  486 F.2d 977· 9th Cir.· 1973-10-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that an employee's isolated complaint about unsafe working conditions, made without reference to a collective bargaining agreement and not for the mutual aid of other employees, does not constitute protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the NLRA.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 485, Int'l Union OF Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, AFL-CIO
  454 F.2d 17· 2d Cir.· 1972-01-12 ·cited 20×
  The court enforced the Board's original order requiring the union to process the grievance but declined to enforce the supplemental order holding the union liable for all back pay.
• Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen OF N. Am., Local NO. 364, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  435 F.2d 668· 9th Cir.· 1970-12-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings that the employer did not engage in unfair labor practices by discharging employees or interrogating them were supported by substantial evidence and that the union received a fair hearing.
• Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  427 F.2d 936· 6th Cir.· 1970-06-10 ·cited 20×·via Section 7 Rights
  An employer has no statutory duty to collectively bargain with a union over changes to retirement benefits for already retired employees, as retirees are not considered 'employees' under Section 8(a)(5) of the Labor Management Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Alamo Express, Inc.
  395 F.2d 481· 5th Cir.· 1968-06-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the company was in civil contempt for violating prior decrees by discriminating against union membership and interfering with employee rights, specifically through the actions of a terminal manager.
• Dubin-Haskell Lining Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  386 F.2d 306· 4th Cir.· 1967-11-10 ·cited 20×
• G & W Elec. Specialty Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  360 F.2d 873· 7th Cir.· 1966-05-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that an employee's discharge for activities related to an employee credit union, which the employer did not control or influence, was not protected "concerted activity for mutual aid or protection" under Section 7 of the NLRA.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Murray-Ohio Mfg. Co.
  358 F.2d 948· 6th Cir.· 1966-04-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the National Labor Relations Board's findings that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by interrogating employees and discharging an employee due to union activity.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sebastopol Apple Growers Union
  269 F.2d 705· 9th Cir.· 1959-08-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Board's findings of discriminatory discharge for three employees were supported by substantial evidence, but the layoff of 143 employees was not discriminatory. The court also found the use of a new application form was not a violation.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Somerville Buick, Inc.
  194 F.2d 56· 1st Cir.· 1952-01-28 ·cited 20×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices, including discriminatory discharge and refusal to bargain, were supported by substantial evidence, and therefore granted the Board's petition for enforcement of its order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Alside, Inc.
  192 F.2d 678· 6th Cir.· 1951-11-26 ·cited 20×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board lacked jurisdiction to issue its order because the underlying charges were filed by a labor organization without the required non-communist affidavits, and the evidence showed the individual filing the charge was acting as an
• W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  190 F.2d 832· 7th Cir.· 1951-07-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the inclusion of a non-compliant union's name in a cease and desist order was improper, and that employees who engaged in significant misconduct preventing others from working were not entitled to reinstatement.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Potlatch Forests, Inc.
  189 F.2d 82· 9th Cir.· 1951-05-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that an employer's "strike seniority" policy, which favors employees who worked during a strike over those who participated in the strike, does not violate Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act if it is adopted for a legitimate business purpose and do
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Crosby Chems., Inc.
  188 F.2d 91· 5th Cir.· 1951-04-03 ·cited 20×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the telegram sent by the Machinists' representatives did not constitute an unconditional request for reinstatement, and therefore the Board's order requiring reinstatement and back pay for the fourteen Machinists could not be enforced.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Reliable Newspaper Delivery, Inc.
  187 F.2d 547· 3d Cir.· 1951-02-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the employer's payment of retroactive wages to union employees but not to non-union employees did not violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act because there was no substantial evidence that this disparity encouraged union membership, especially given the non-union e
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
  154 F.2d 932· 6th Cir.· 1946-04-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board erred in ordering the employer to bargain with a union representing plant guards who also serve as public police officers, due to the inherent conflict of interest.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hollywood-Maxwell Co.
  126 F.2d 815· 9th Cir.· 1942-03-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that employee designations of a union procured through bribery could be revoked, and that the employer did not violate the Act by refusing to bargain with that union after revocations, nor by dealing with a subsequently formed employee group.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Burry Biscuit Corp.
  123 F.2d 540· 7th Cir.· 1941-11-26 ·cited 20×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that while the employer's actions could be interpreted as supporting an independent union, the broad cease and desist order was improper and should be modified.
• Roebling Emps. Ass'n, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  120 F.2d 289· 3d Cir.· 1941-04-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board was justified in concluding that the Roebling Employees' Association was not the result of employees' free choice due to employer interference. The Board's order disestablishing the Association was enforced, with an amendment
• Coors Container Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  628 F.2d 1283· 10th Cir.· 1980-08-27 ·cited 19×·via Section 7 Concerted Activity
  The court held that Coors Container Company violated the National Labor Relations Act by prohibiting the display of a boycott sign, disciplining employees for displaying it, and interrogating them about their union sympathies.
• Cent. Hardware Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  439 F.2d 1321· 8th Cir.· 1971-03-24 ·cited 19×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the company's non-employee no-solicitation rule was lawful as applied to its parking lots, distinguishing the case from Logan Valley.
• Price v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  373 F.2d 443· 9th Cir.· 1967-02-20 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a union's suspension of a member for attempting to decertify the union does not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as it falls within the proviso protecting a union's right to prescribe rules for membership retention.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen OF N. Am.
  202 F.2d 671· 9th Cir.· 1953-03-18 ·cited 19×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings that the Union caused an employee's discharge and threatened employees were not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
• LAW v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  192 F.2d 236· 10th Cir.· 1951-10-25 ·cited 19×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  Proof of union compliance with filing requirements is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for the Board to proceed with a hearing.
• Weather Shield MFG., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  890 F.2d 52· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 18×
  The dissent argues the majority impermissibly displaced the Board's findings and that substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that employer statements constituted promises violating the Act.
• Commc'n Workers OF Am. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  784 F.2d 847· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-03 ·cited 18×
  The National Labor Relations Board was entitled to adopt its new policy (Taracorp) of not ordering reinstatement and back pay for Weingarten violations, even on a case remanded from court, as an exercise of its remedial discretion.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Carpenters Local Union NO. 35
  739 F.2d 479· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Union violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by unlawfully discharging two employees for engaging in intraunion activities protected by section 7.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Harrison Steel Castings Co.
  728 F.2d 831· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge would hold that statements made by Harrison Steel's management regarding potential job loss due to unionization did not violate the Act, as they were permissible expressions of free speech based on economic realities and not threats.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. NEW Columbus Nursing Home, Inc.
  720 F.2d 726· 1st Cir.· 1983-11-09 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the result, agreeing that the misrepresentation's materiality was not high enough to warrant overturning the election, even under a proper rule.
• Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Local NO. 355, Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  716 F.2d 1249· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-26 ·cited 18×
  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cannot enjoin a state-court lawsuit that is not baseless, and must defer to the state court's jurisdiction over genuine factual disputes.
• Mo-Kan Teamsters Pension Fund v. Creason
  716 F.2d 772· 10th Cir.· 1983-09-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a contract stipulation binding an employer to a collective bargaining agreement and its subsequent modifications, renewals, and extensions is enforceable, even if the employer later claims oral assurances modified its terms or that the union lacked majority su
• Landmark Int'l Trucks, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  699 F.2d 815· 6th Cir.· 1983-02-07 ·cited 18×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that if dues checkoff was continued, the employer's letter informing employees of their right to resign from the union and revoke dues checkoff was permissible, and the subsequent withdrawal of recognition was lawful.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Town & Country LP GAS Serv. Co.
  687 F.2d 187· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order finding the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by retaliating against an employee for pursuing a grievance and filing unfair labor practice charges is supported by substantial evidence and legally sound
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Downslope Indus., Inc.
  676 F.2d 1114· 6th Cir.· 1982-04-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Board's order to reinstate supervisor Scarlett was improper because supervisors are generally excluded from the Act's protections, and the circumstances did not fit the narrow exceptions for such reinstatement.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Truck Drivers
  630 F.2d 505· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the dismissals of employees were justified by their insubordination and poor performance, not by protected union activity, and therefore denied enforcement of the NLRB order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Inland Empire Meat Co.
  611 F.2d 1235· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a general unfair labor practice charge is sufficient to authorize the Board to issue a complaint for related unfair labor practices occurring within the statutory period, and that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's findings of unlawful disch
• Gerry's Cash Mkts., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  602 F.2d 1021· 1st Cir.· 1979-08-08 ·cited 18×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that an employer's demotion of a supervisor for failing to enforce an overly broad and discriminatorily applied no-solicitation rule constitutes an unfair labor practice under § 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. The court also enforced the Board's order requiring the posting of
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Process & Pollution Control Co.
  588 F.2d 786· 10th Cir.· 1978-12-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the employer's beliefs about union affiliation of previously hired employees was an error that might affect the outcome, and the admission of hearsay testimony was also an error.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Con-Pac, Inc.
  509 F.2d 270· 5th Cir.· 1975-03-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order requiring the company to bargain with the union should be enforced, as the union's waiver of initiation fees did not invalidate the election.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Leslie Metal Arts Co., Inc.
  509 F.2d 811· 6th Cir.· 1975-01-22 ·cited 18×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court held that an employer's failure to maintain discipline that rises to the point of threatening employee safety constitutes a valid basis for protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Int'l Union of Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  502 F.2d 349· D.C. Cir.· 1974-04-25 ·cited 18×·via Section 7 Rights
  The court denied the suggestion for rehearing en banc because a majority of judges did not vote in favor, and the underlying issue concerned substantial evidence review, which is not typically grounds for en banc review.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Quality Mfg. Co.
  481 F.2d 1018· 4th Cir.· 1973-07-19 ·cited 18×·via National Labor Relations Act § 7
  The court held that an employee does not have a right to union representation at an investigatory interview where disciplinary action might result, unless a grievance has already been filed. The Board's order to enforce discharges and suspensions based on this premise was denied.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hendel Mfg. Co., Inc.
  483 F.2d 350· 2d Cir.· 1973-06-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by interfering with employees' union rights and refusing to recognize the union, and that the Board's order for the company to bargain was warranted.