Section 7 Rights

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

• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hotel
  320 F.2d 254· 3d Cir.· 1963-07-10 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a union's failure to inform employees of their dues obligations, coupled with procedural irregularities in determining those obligations, prevented the union from lawfully demanding their discharge for non-payment.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Avondale Mills
  242 F.2d 669· 5th Cir.· 1957-03-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while the company's no-solicitation rule was not discriminatorily applied, there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that employee Jones was discriminatorily discharged.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Armour & Co.
  154 F.2d 570· 10th Cir.· 1946-11-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that plant clerks, checkers, and cost clerks are employees under the National Labor Relations Act, and their discharges and the company's refusal to bargain were unfair labor practices. The court modified the scope of the cease and desist order.
• Avecor v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  931 F.2d 924· D.C. Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the NLRB wrongly construed the firing of an employee as an unfair labor practice, neglected to explain its bargaining unit conclusion, and failed to make proper inquiries before imposing a bargaining order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pratt & Whitney AIR Craft Div.
  789 F.2d 121· 2d Cir.· 1986-04-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the employer violated the NLRA by prohibiting the distribution of 'scab' literature, by failing to provide union with survey results, and by threatening employees with discharge for not calling in during a potential strike. The court affirmed the Board's findi
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Rolligon Corp.
  702 F.2d 589· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the union's misuse of Board subpoenas, while improper, did not create a sufficient impression of Board endorsement to warrant setting aside the representation election, and thus the Board's bargaining order would be enforced.
• Giddings & Lewis, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  675 F.2d 926· 7th Cir.· 1982-04-19 ·cited 24×
  An employer does not violate the National Labor Relations Act by implementing seniority rules that grant permanent replacement workers priority over unreinstated strikers in the event of a layoff.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wilson Freight Co.
  604 F.2d 712· 1st Cir.· 1979-08-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board erred in finding an employee's discharge unlawful, as the Board improperly disregarded a prior arbitration award that established a legitimate, contractually permissible reason for the discharge.
• Local 627, Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  595 F.2d 844· D.C. Cir.· 1979-03-06 ·cited 24×
  The National Labor Relations Board did not err in determining that construction workers employed by South Prairie Construction Company constitute a separate appropriate bargaining unit from those employed by Peter Kiewit Sons' Company, despite both being subsidiaries of the same
• Drug Package, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  570 F.2d 1340· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while a prospective bargaining order for 8(a)(1) violations was appropriate, a retroactive bargaining order and reinstatement based on an 8(a)(5) violation were not, as the 8(a)(5) charge was not properly litigated and the strike was not an unfair labor practi
• Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  476 F.2d 850· 1st Cir.· 1973-04-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) violated the National Labor Relations Act by unlawfully suspending merit increases, soliciting employee disavowal of the union, and engaging in bad-faith bargaining.
• Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  377 F.2d 452· 6th Cir.· 1967-05-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the company violated Section 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating employees and threatening suspensions, but did not violate Section 8(a)(3) by discharging employees or Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to bargain.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc.
  305 F.2d 807· 7th Cir.· 1962-07-17 ·cited 24×
  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×
  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. Delaware-N.J. Ferry Co.
  128 F.2d 130· 3d Cir.· 1942-04-29 ·cited 24×
  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.
• 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×
  The Board erred by refusing to consider union efficiency as a factor in its balancing of interests under the NLRA.
• 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×
  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.
• 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.
• Johns-Manville Prods. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  557 F.2d 1126· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the employees' conduct constituted an in-plant strike, justifying the company's lockout and hiring of permanent replacements.
• McDONNELL Douglas Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  472 F.2d 539· 8th Cir.· 1973-01-26 ·cited 22×
  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×
• 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×
  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×
  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×
  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. W. Ohio Gas Co.
  172 F.2d 685· 6th Cir.· 1949-02-21 ·cited 22×
  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.
• 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×
  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×
  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.
• Teamsters Local Union NO. 171 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  863 F.2d 946· D.C. Cir.· 1988-12-09 ·cited 20×
  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.
• 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.
• 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×
  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
• 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×
  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×
  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.
• Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  427 F.2d 936· 6th Cir.· 1970-06-10 ·cited 20×
  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. 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. Alside, Inc.
  192 F.2d 678· 6th Cir.· 1951-11-26 ·cited 20×
  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. Crosby Chems., Inc.
  188 F.2d 91· 5th Cir.· 1951-04-03 ·cited 20×
  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. 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. Burry Biscuit Corp.
  123 F.2d 540· 7th Cir.· 1941-11-26 ·cited 20×
  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.
• Cent. Hardware Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  439 F.2d 1321· 8th Cir.· 1971-03-24 ·cited 19×
  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.
• 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×
  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×
  Proof of union compliance with filing requirements is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for the Board to proceed with a hearing.
• 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.
• Gerry's Cash Mkts., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  602 F.2d 1021· 1st Cir.· 1979-08-08 ·cited 18×
  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. Leslie Metal Arts Co., Inc.
  509 F.2d 811· 6th Cir.· 1975-01-22 ·cited 18×
  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×
  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.