Section 7 Rights

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

• 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.
• Fraser & Johnston Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  469 F.2d 1259· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while the company violated labor laws by refusing to bargain in good faith over relocation effects and by unlawfully recognizing and assisting the IBEW, the Board's order requiring recognition of the original unions at the new plant could not be enforced due t
• Retail Clerks Union, Local 1401, Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  463 F.2d 316· D.C. Cir.· 1972-03-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Company waived its procedural objection regarding the timeliness and specificity of the Union's election objections by failing to file exceptions to the Regional Director's report recommending a hearing.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. LOU De Young's Mkt. Basket, Inc.
  406 F.2d 17· 6th Cir.· 1969-01-17 ·cited 18×
  The court enforced the National Labor Relations Board's order, finding that the employer committed unfair labor practices by unlawfully discharging employees and refusing to bargain with the union.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 369 Int'l HOD Carriers' Bldg. & Common Laborers' Union OF Am.
  240 F.2d 539· 3d Cir.· 1956-12-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order was too broad and should not have included a general prohibition against restraining employees' rights, as the specific violation found did not justify such a sweeping injunction.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Jarka Corp. of Philadelphia
  198 F.2d 618· 3d Cir.· 1952-08-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the union's actions in causing the employer to discriminate against non-union workers constituted an unfair labor practice under Section 8(b)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act.
• Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of ST. Louis v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  195 F.2d 955· 8th Cir.· 1952-04-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence, but modified the Board's order regarding notification of employee revocation of union authority.
• United Biscuit Co. of Am. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  128 F.2d 771· 7th Cir.· 1942-06-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the employer was not obligated to reinstate or provide back pay to employees who struck in violation of their contract, but upheld the Board's finding of discriminatory discharge for other employees.
• Passaic Daily News v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  736 F.2d 1543· D.C. Cir.· 1984-06-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order to cease and desist from unfair labor practices is enforceable, but the order to resume publication of Stoddard's column is denied enforcement due to First Amendment concerns.
• Marathon LeTOURNEAU Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  699 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices by Marathon LeTourneau Company were supported by substantial evidence, and therefore, the Board's order would be enforced.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Nat'l CAR Rental Sys., Inc.
  672 F.2d 1182· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Board abused its discretion in issuing a bargaining order and erred in reversing the ALJ's finding that the union waived its right to bargain over the effects of the facility transfer.
• The Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  658 F.2d 968· 4th Cir.· 1981-09-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Board's order compelling the employer to make premises available and reimburse union for rental costs was beyond its remedial power.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. The Am. CAN Co.
  658 F.2d 746· 10th Cir.· 1981-08-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order enforcing a superseniority clause against the company and unions is enforceable, despite the Board members' divergent rationales, because the order is consistent with the Act and supported by substantial evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kiawah Island Co., Ltd.
  650 F.2d 485· 4th Cir.· 1981-05-27 ·cited 16×
  The court should have found substantial evidence that Kiawah discriminatorily discharged Hymes and Murray due to their union organizing efforts.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Container Corp. OF Am.
  649 F.2d 1213· 6th Cir.· 1981-05-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the company violated the NLRA by threatening to discipline an employee for posting an anti-management notice, but that there was insufficient evidence to support the NLRB's finding that a manager threatened another employee.
• Stein Seal Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  605 F.2d 703· 3d Cir.· 1979-09-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the employer's implied threat of retaliation and restriction of an employee's movement constituted unfair labor practices, but the employee's discharge was not motivated by union activity.
• Retail Clerks Local 588, Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  565 F.2d 769· D.C. Cir.· 1977-11-04 ·cited 16×
  Invoking the grievance-arbitration machinery to resolve a colorable contract interpretation issue, without striking or picketing, is not an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Clapper's Mfg., Inc.
  458 F.2d 414· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the employer committed unfair labor practices by interfering with employee rights and dominating a labor organization, and that procedural errors in affidavit review were harmless.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. TOM Johnson, Inc.
  378 F.2d 342· 9th Cir.· 1967-05-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by bargaining directly with employees and unilaterally changing terms of employment, and by discharging employees for union-related activities.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. General Drivers
  264 F.2d 21· 10th Cir.· 1959-02-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order requiring reimbursement of union dues checked off from employees was an appropriate remedy for the union's coercive conduct in withholding contractual benefits until employees signed union membership and checkoff auth
• Cap. Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  204 F.2d 848· 9th Cir.· 1953-01-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction over unfair labor practices affecting commerce, preempting state court injunctions in such matters. The unions' secondary boycott activities violated the Taft-Hartley Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Stowe Spinning Co.
  165 F.2d 609· 4th Cir.· 1947-12-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that compelling employers to allow union use of private facilities for organizing, when no other public space is available, constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property and violates the employer's property rights. However, the court found substantial evidence
• Local NO. 2880 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  158 F.2d 365· 9th Cir.· 1946-11-22 ·cited 16×
  An employer cannot discharge an employee under a closed-shop agreement for acting as an observer for a rival union in a representation election, as this would violate the employee's right to choose their bargaining representative.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sec. Warehouse & Cold Storage Co.
  136 F.2d 829· 9th Cir.· 1943-08-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices, including employer domination of a labor organization and discrimination against employees for union activities, were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the Board's order.
• Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  893 F.2d 1468· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-29 ·cited 14×
  The court granted in part and denied in part Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc.'s petition for review of a National Labor Relations Board order. The court affirmed the Board's finding that Kenrich violated section 8(a)(1) by discharging supervisor Helen Chizmar in retaliation for her r
• Roadway Express, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  831 F.2d 1285· 6th Cir.· 1987-10-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the employer's removal of bulletin boards was a reasonable response to the abuse of their use for threatening and insulting material, not an unfair labor practice.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Malta Constr. Co.
  806 F.2d 1009· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order against Malta Construction Company for unfair labor practices was supported by substantial evidence and applied proper legal standards.
• United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. N.L.R.B.
  788 F.2d 178· 3d Cir.· 1986-04-16 ·cited 14×
  A charging party is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on its objections to proposed informal settlement agreements after a formal unfair labor practice complaint has been issued.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lorimar Prods., Inc.
  771 F.2d 1294· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion by allowing an election to proceed while a request for review was pending, impounding ballots instead of requiring multiple ballots.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Norbar, Inc.
  752 F.2d 235· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-16 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the finding of an 8(a)(1) violation, reversed the 8(a)(3) finding for employee Green, and remanded the 8(a)(3) issue for employee Seitz.
• The Trs. OF the Masonic Hall & Asylum Fund v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  699 F.2d 626· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's determination of a service and maintenance unit was appropriate, despite a weak articulation, because it balanced employee rights with the congressional mandate against undue proliferation in the health care industry.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Keystone Pretzel Bakery, Inc.
  696 F.2d 257· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-29 ·cited 14×
  The court enforced the National Labor Relations Board's order, finding substantial evidence supported the unfair labor practice findings and that a bargaining order was warranted despite employee turnover.
• Ervin Szewczuga and Gerald Treichel v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  686 F.2d 962· D.C. Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 14×
  An employer violates the NLRA by imposing disparate discipline on union officials for participating in an unprotected strike, absent explicit contractual provisions for higher duties or proof of strike leadership.
• Fla. Steel Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  648 F.2d 233· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the company's showing of an anti-union videotape violated previous court orders prohibiting interference with employees' rights, and adopted the Special Master's recommended remedies for civil contempt.
• Custom Recovery v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  597 F.2d 1041· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Board's findings of section 8(a)(1) violations based on a threatened discharge and an alleged interrogation were not supported by substantial evidence. The court also held it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's order for a second election.
• Donovan v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  520 F.2d 1316· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a union's misconduct during a strike does not necessarily preclude a Gissel bargaining order when the employer's unfair labor practices have made a fair election impossible.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Raytheon Co.
  445 F.2d 272· 9th Cir.· 1971-06-23 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the Board's order finding unfair labor practices and enforced the order, but reversed the Board's finding of a promise of benefit.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Winkel Motors, Inc.
  443 F.2d 38· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices and discriminatory discharge were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the Board's order.
• Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  417 F.2d 1206· 6th Cir.· 1969-11-04 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge holds that there was insufficient evidence to establish an agency relationship between the former Mayor and the Company, and that the Board's order against the Mayor was improper.
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  415 F.2d 113· 8th Cir.· 1969-09-15 ·cited 14×
  A union cannot waive employees' Section 7 rights to distribute literature in non-work areas during non-work time through a collective bargaining agreement.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 282
  412 F.2d 334· 2d Cir.· 1969-07-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a union violates the National Labor Relations Act if it partially bases its decision to deny an employee seniority on the employee's anti-union activities, even if the employee was a supervisor at the time.
• Falcon Plastics-Division OF B-D Labs., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  397 F.2d 965· 9th Cir.· 1968-06-04 ·cited 14×
  The Board's determination that the employee's discharge was motivated by protected concerted activity, despite his conduct, was not illogical or arbitrary and thus must prevail.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Schnell Tool & DIE Corp. & Salem Stamping & Mfg. Co., Inc.
  359 F.2d 39· 6th Cir.· 1966-04-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while it found substantial evidence supporting the NLRB's findings of unfair labor practices, it would withhold full enforcement of the order because the companies had ceased operations and sold their facilities, rendering a full decree potentially moot.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Inglewood Park Cemetery Ass'n
  355 F.2d 448· 9th Cir.· 1966-01-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board had jurisdiction over the respondent cemetery association because its operations, though primarily local, affected interstate commerce, and the de minimis rule did not apply to its interstate purchases.
• Brewers & Maltsters Local Union NO. 6 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  301 F.2d 216· 8th Cir.· 1962-04-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the Company discharged Gerak at the Union's request, constituting unlawful discrimination, and that the Union's actions violated the Act.
• Hwy. Truck Drivers & Helpers Local 107 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  273 F.2d 815· D.C. Cir.· 1959-12-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the union's actions constituted unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act, but modified the scope of the Board's order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Int'l Woodworkers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  243 F.2d 745· 5th Cir.· 1957-04-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that acts of violence and threats against supervisory employees and independent contractors, committed in the presence of striking employees, constitute an unfair labor practice by coercing strikers to remain out. The Board's order for enforcement is valid.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Norma Mining Corp.
  206 F.2d 38· 4th Cir.· 1953-07-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Norma Mining Corporation was not a joint employer with its lessees, and therefore not responsible for their alleged unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act. The court also found sufficient evidence to uphold the National Labor Relations B
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Penokee Veneer Co.
  168 F.2d 868· 7th Cir.· 1948-06-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the employer's conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interfering with employees' rights to collective bargaining.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Am. Pearl Button Co.
  149 F.2d 311· 8th Cir.· 1945-05-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that statements made by the American Pearl Button Company's president and foremen constituted unfair labor practices by interfering with employees' rights, but the Washington Chamber of Commerce's actions did not. Enforcement of the Board's order was granted agains