Section 7 Rights

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

• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Philadelphia Iron Works, Inc.
  211 F.2d 937· 3d Cir.· 1954-04-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the union violated the National Labor Relations Act by maintaining and enforcing illegal hiring provisions and by causing the company to refuse employment to an applicant who bypassed the union's referral system.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Williams
  195 F.2d 669· 4th Cir.· 1952-04-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's determination of an appropriate bargaining unit was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, and that the respondents violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain and by discriminating against e
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Westex Boot & Shoe Co.
  190 F.2d 12· 5th Cir.· 1951-06-25 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Board had jurisdiction to issue a complaint that elaborated on the unfair labor practices alleged in the charge, and that the Board's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence.
• Courier-Citizen Co. v. Boston Electrotypers Union NO. 11
  702 F.2d 273· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-14 ·cited 37×
  The court held that an arbitrator's award supplementing an incomplete initial award is permissible under federal labor law, and that a contract provision giving preference to laid-off union members for non-unit jobs does not violate the NLRA. However, an award to a third party (S
• 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×
  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.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Air Appliance Co., Inc.
  117 F.2d 417· 2d Cir.· 1941-02-03 ·cited 36×
  The court should fully enforce the Board's order without modification based on post-decision events.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd.
  419 F.2d 216· 9th Cir.· 1969-11-19 ·cited 35×
  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×
• AD ART, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  645 F.2d 669· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-09 ·cited 34×
  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×
  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.
• 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. 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. Dalton Brick & Tile Corp.
  301 F.2d 886· 5th Cir.· 1962-04-13 ·cited 34×
  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. Syracuse Stamping Co.
  208 F.2d 77· 2d Cir.· 1953-11-10 ·cited 34×
• Morand Bros. Bev. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  204 F.2d 529· 7th Cir.· 1953-05-28 ·cited 34×
  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×
  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.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Blevins Popcorn Co.
  659 F.2d 1173· D.C. Cir.· 1981-07-10 ·cited 32×
  The court concurred in the result because the Special Master apparently applied an erroneous standard of proof, necessitating remand.
• Carpenter Sprinkler Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  605 F.2d 60· 2d Cir.· 1979-08-17 ·cited 32×
  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×
  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.
• 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×
  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.
• King Radio Corp., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  398 F.2d 14· 10th Cir.· 1968-07-22 ·cited 32×
  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
• Templeton v. Dixie Color Printing Co., Inc.
  444 F.2d 1064· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-26 ·cited 31×
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. New Era Die Co., Inc.
  118 F.2d 500· 3d Cir.· 1941-02-26 ·cited 31×
  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.
• 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×
  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.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc.
  406 F.2d 1173· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-28 ·cited 30×
  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.
• 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×
  The court should affirm the Board's decision if it has a rational basis, even if the court would have decided differently.
• ST. Louis Indep. Packing Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  291 F.2d 700· 7th Cir.· 1961-06-21 ·cited 30×
  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.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Proler Int'l Corp.
  635 F.2d 351· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-26 ·cited 28×
  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×
  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×
  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×
  The court held that the no-strike clause did not clearly and unmistakably waive the employees' right to engage in a sympathy strike.
• Walgreen Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  509 F.2d 1014· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-21 ·cited 28×
  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×
  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
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. AIR Master Corp.
  339 F.2d 553· 3d Cir.· 1964-12-14 ·cited 28×
  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. Flemingsburg Mfg. Co.
  300 F.2d 182· 6th Cir.· 1962-03-21 ·cited 28×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the NLRB's finding of unfair labor practices and affirmed the Board's order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sunbeam Elec. MFG. Co.
  133 F.2d 856· 7th Cir.· 1943-02-06 ·cited 28×
  The court should modify paragraph 1 of the order, as its broad language is not justified by the specific unfair labor practices found.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Aluminum Prods. Co.
  120 F.2d 567· 7th Cir.· 1941-03-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence, and its order should be enforced, with the exception of the back pay award for the plant closure.
• Local 814 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  512 F.2d 564· D.C. Cir.· 1975-04-30 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must provide a reasoned explanation for its decisions, particularly when there are inconsistencies between cases, and a simple remand for supplementation is insufficient if the agency has failed to give the issue a 'ha
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Geigy Co., Inc.
  211 F.2d 553· 9th Cir.· 1954-03-17 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the employer's anti-union statements were coercive, and the Board's order to bargain was proper despite employee turnover, though the cease and desist order was too broad.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. John Engelhorn & Sons
  134 F.2d 553· 3d Cir.· 1943-03-01 ·cited 27×
  A closed shop agreement is invalid if the employer assisted the labor organization through unfair labor practices, and such a contract cannot bar Board proceedings or justify discharges.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Murray Prods., Inc.
  584 F.2d 934· 9th Cir.· 1978-10-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the company's offers of reinstatement were invalid because they did not provide a reasonable time for consideration, and thus the company's backpay obligation was not tolled.
• Sw. Reg'l Joint Bd., Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Am., Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  441 F.2d 1027· D.C. Cir.· 1970-12-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the company's change in overtime calculation was not an unfair labor practice, and an assistant plant manager's conversation with an employee was not unlawfully coercive.
• The Schwarzenbach-Huber Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  408 F.2d 236· 2d Cir.· 1969-03-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Union did not possess a majority of valid authorization cards and that the Company's doubt of the Union's majority was made in good faith, thus setting aside the bargaining order.
• The News Union OF Baltimore v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  393 F.2d 673· D.C. Cir.· 1968-02-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a defensive lockout requires a finding that the union threatened the employers' interest in group bargaining.