Section 7 Rights

400 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  185 F.2d 732· D.C. Cir.· 1950-11-02 ·cited 295×
• Local Union NO. 12 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  368 F.2d 12· 5th Cir.· 1966-11-09 ·cited 105×
  A union's breach of its duty of fair representation constitutes an unfair labor practice under Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Flomatic Corp.
  347 F.2d 74· 2d Cir.· 1965-06-14 ·cited 104×
  The court refused to enforce the Board's order to bargain, giving weight to the technicality that the union petitioned for an election without waiting for a reply to its bargaining request.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. S. S. Logan Packing Co.
  386 F.2d 562· 4th Cir.· 1967-10-27 ·cited 102×
  The court held that an employer's unfair labor practices do not automatically preclude a good faith doubt of union majority status, and a bargaining order is not warranted without extraordinary circumstances justifying bypassing a representation election.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bradley Washfountain Co.
  192 F.2d 144· 7th Cir.· 1951-11-01 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the Board erred in finding unfair labor practices based on wage increases and a holiday pay concession made after notice to the union, and that the employer's "back to work" movement during an economic strike did not violate the Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Nevis Indus., Inc.
  647 F.2d 905· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-08 ·cited 92×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings of unlawful interference with retained employees and unlawful refusal to retain engineers due to anti-union animus, but the Board applied the wrong legal standard in ordering the reinstatement of a supervisor
• Boire v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  479 F.2d 778· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-08 ·cited 91×
  A temporary injunction under § 10(j) of the NLRA is appropriate when there is reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices have occurred and equitable relief is necessary to preserve the Board's jurisdiction and the status quo, even if the legal theories are novel.
• JAS. H. Matthews & Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  354 F.2d 432· 8th Cir.· 1965-12-29 ·cited 90×
  The court held that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by threatening employees, interrogating them, surveilling their union activities, maintaining an unlawful no-solicitation rule, and refusing to bargain with the union after it had established majority statu
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Rapid Bindery, Inc.
  293 F.2d 170· 2d Cir.· 1961-07-11 ·cited 82×
  The court held that while the move of operations was economically motivated and not a violation of § 8(a)(3), the failure to notify the union of the move and discuss its impact on employees constituted a violation of § 8(a)(5), and certain employer statements violated § 8(a)(1).
• Wellington Mill Division v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  330 F.2d 579· 4th Cir.· 1964-03-25 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the company was responsible for the actions of its personnel director in suggesting and assisting the formation of an anti-union movement.
• United States v. Boffa
  688 F.2d 919· 3d Cir.· 1982-08-25 ·cited 71×
  A scheme to deprive employees of rights guaranteed by section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) cannot serve as the basis for a mail fraud prosecution, as the NLRA is remedial and vests exclusive authority in the NLRB to determine unfair labor practices.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Elias Bros. BIG BOY, Inc.
  327 F.2d 421· 6th Cir.· 1964-02-12 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the employer did not discriminatorily discharge Ann Maniscalco, finding she was not a bona fide employee under the Act and had given notice of her intent to leave.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pincus Bros.
  620 F.2d 367· 3d Cir.· 1980-04-17 ·cited 64×
  The dissenting judge argues that the Spielberg-Collyer doctrine, allowing the NLRB to defer unfair labor practice charges to arbitration, lacks statutory basis and undermines the Board's public policy function. The judge believes deferral is inappropriate for charges involving in
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Cambria Clay Prods. Co.
  215 F.2d 48· 6th Cir.· 1954-07-07 ·cited 64×
  The court held that while some employee discharges and strike-related issues were supported by evidence of unfair labor practices, the company did not refuse to bargain in good faith, and further evidence was needed regarding contempt findings for certain employees.
• Fla. Steel Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  529 F.2d 1225· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-12 ·cited 62×
  The court held that while most of the Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence, the discharge of employee Blessing was for good cause and not a violation of the Act. Enforcement of the Board's order was granted in part and denied in part.
• Local NO. 3-193 Int'l Woodworkers OF Am. v. Ketchikan Pulp Co.
  611 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-21 ·cited 60×
  The court held that while it has jurisdiction to interpret the collective bargaining agreement, Section 301 does not grant federal courts initial authority to determine representation issues or appropriate bargaining units, which fall under the NLRB's primary jurisdiction. A cont
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Eagle Material Handling, Inc.
  558 F.2d 160· 3d Cir.· 1977-06-22 ·cited 60×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings of unfair labor practices and that the remedies imposed were within the Board's discretion, granting enforcement of the Board's orders.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Safway Steel Scaffolds Co. OF Ga.
  383 F.2d 273· 5th Cir.· 1967-09-07 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the Board's order should be enforced, except for an overly broad injunction against any future Section 7 violation, as the company committed unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain in good faith and discriminating against employees.
• Snow v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  308 F.2d 687· 9th Cir.· 1962-09-28 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the employer's refusal to bargain was an unfair labor practice because they did not have a good faith doubt of the union's majority status, and that the company unlawfully refused to reinstate nine striking employees.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Buitoni Foods Corp.
  298 F.2d 169· 3d Cir.· 1962-01-15 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence, and its order for enforcement was valid.
• Peoples GAS Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  629 F.2d 35· D.C. Cir.· 1980-05-02 ·cited 58×
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Intertherm, Inc.
  596 F.2d 267· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-19 ·cited 58×
  The court granted enforcement of the NLRB's order regarding seven of the ten alleged violations, finding that Intertherm interfered with, restrained, or coerced employees exercising their rights under the NLRA. Enforcement was refused for three alleged violations.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. The Kostel Corp.
  440 F.2d 347· 7th Cir.· 1971-02-25 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the Labor Board did not err in finding the Kankakee store an appropriate bargaining unit and that Kostel Corporation violated Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to bargain. The court also found a bargaining order appropriate.
• Alfred M. Lewis, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  587 F.2d 403· 9th Cir.· 1978-09-13 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the employer violated the NLRA by unilaterally implementing production standards and denying union representation at investigatory interviews, but not at final disciplinary meetings. The Board's remedy of reinstatement and back pay was largely upheld.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pope Maint. Corp.
  573 F.2d 898· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-26 ·cited 56×
  The court held that Pope Maintenance Corporation is a statutory employer subject to the National Labor Relations Act, and its order to cease and desist unfair labor practices, reinstate strikers, and bargain with the union is enforceable.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Adams Dairy, Inc.
  350 F.2d 108· 8th Cir.· 1965-09-08 ·cited 56×
  The court held that Adams Dairy's decision to terminate its distribution business and sell products to independent contractors was not a mandatory subject of collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  331 F.2d 176· 8th Cir.· 1964-04-28 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the employer violated Section 8(a)(2) by recognizing one union while a question of representation existed, influenced by its own unfair labor practices. However, the court reversed the Board's order to reinstate an employee for a Section 8(a)(4) violation due
• Red Star Exp. Lines of Auburn, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  196 F.2d 78· 2d Cir.· 1952-04-14 ·cited 56×
  The dissent argues that the parties' contract addendum did not constitute an unfair labor practice, as there was no substantial evidence of intent to deceive employees or to continue a 'closed shop' after the addendum's effective date.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. S. Cal. Edison Co.
  646 F.2d 1352· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-01 ·cited 55×
  The court held that employees have a statutory right to honor lawful picket lines, even at a customer's premises, and this right is not waived by a general no-strike clause unless the waiver is clear and unmistakable.
• J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  441 F.2d 514· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-22 ·cited 53×
  The court concurred in the enforcement of the Board's order, granting a bargaining order without a rerun election.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Challenge-Cook Bros. OF Ohio, Inc.
  374 F.2d 147· 6th Cir.· 1967-03-02 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the employer discriminatorily discharged an employee due to union activity and unlawfully removed union meeting notices from bulletin boards, but modified the Board's order to be more specific.
• United Packinghouse, Food & Allied Workers Int'l Union, Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  416 F.2d 1126· D.C. Cir.· 1969-02-07 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the employer's policy and practice of discrimination can constitute a violation of the Act if proven to be invidious and on account of race or national origin.
• Serv-Air, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  395 F.2d 557· 10th Cir.· 1968-01-19 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the company's no-solicitation rule was not discriminatorily promulgated or enforced, but that its 'serious harm' notice was a threat in the 1964 context. The court affirmed the Board's findings regarding the lockout of striking employees and the firemen, the m
• Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  430 F.2d 724· 5th Cir.· 1970-07-28 ·cited 50×
  The court held that disciplining employees for statements made during a grievance meeting, even if intemperate, did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act because such meetings require a free exchange of views and the conduct was not so opprobrious as to
• Int'l Union v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  392 F.2d 801· D.C. Cir.· 1967-11-14 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the company committed unfair labor practices by threatening employees, promising benefits, refusing to bargain, and coercively interrogating employees, but remanded the issue of compensatory relief for further Board consideration.
• Piasecki Aircraft Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  280 F.2d 575· 3d Cir.· 1960-06-20 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the employer's offer to hire cured any potential violation of Section 8(a)(3) by refusing to hire based on union affiliation, as the employees rejected the offer.
• Carpenters' Local Union NO. 1478 v. Stevens
  743 F.2d 1271· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-01 ·cited 47×
  The court held that an arbitrator's award drawing its essence from a collective bargaining agreement should be affirmed.
• Conair Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  721 F.2d 1355· D.C. Cir.· 1983-11-15 ·cited 47×
  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has the statutory authority to issue a bargaining order even in the absence of a demonstrated majority of employee support for a union, provided that the employer has engaged in "outrageous" and "pervasive" unfair labor practices that pre
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Browning-Ferris Indus. OF Pa., Inc.
  691 F.2d 1117· 3d Cir.· 1982-10-28 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board applied the correct "joint employer" standard and that substantial evidence supported its finding that BFI exerted sufficient control over the drivers to be considered a joint employer.
• Fort Smith Broad. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  341 F.2d 874· 8th Cir.· 1965-03-04 ·cited 46×
  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×
  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.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Silver Spur Casino
  623 F.2d 571· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-27 ·cited 44×
  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
• 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×
  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×
  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. Prince MacAroni Mfg. Co.
  329 F.2d 803· 1st Cir.· 1964-03-31 ·cited 42×
  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. Puerto RICO Rayon Mills, Inc.
  293 F.2d 941· 1st Cir.· 1961-08-29 ·cited 42×
  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.
• 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
• 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.