Section 7 Rights

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

• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Rexall Chem. Co.
  418 F.2d 603· 5th Cir.· 1969-10-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the company's announcement of an improved vacation plan was an unfair labor practice intended to dissuade employees from unionizing, as there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. M & W Marine Ways, Inc.
  411 F.2d 1070· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the post-petition conversations between supervisor Frey and employees Jacobi and Bourgeois did not constitute unfair labor practices under Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, as they were informal, not coercive, and not supported by substantial evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. KAY Elecs., Inc.
  410 F.2d 499· 8th Cir.· 1969-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board's finding that Della Galloway's discharge was motivated by union activity, but affirmed the Board's findings regarding Mary Grass's discharge and other unfair labor practices.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Harry T. Campbell Sons' Corp.
  407 F.2d 969· 4th Cir.· 1969-02-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Board's designation of a bargaining unit for calcite employees was supported by substantial evidence and within its discretion, and that the employer's other contentions were without merit.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Electro Motive MFG. Co., Inc.
  389 F.2d 61· 4th Cir.· 1968-01-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board has the authority to order the reinstatement of a supervisor discharged for cooperating with a Board investigation, as such a discharge violates the National Labor Relations Act.
• The Visador Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  386 F.2d 276· 4th Cir.· 1967-10-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the employer did not violate the Act by discharging Roberts, Forward, Low, or Weatherford (first discharge), nor by discharging supervisor Pendergast, but did violate the Act through certain interrogations and threats. The discharge of Williams was found to be
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mark J. Gerry, Inc.
  355 F.2d 727· 9th Cir.· 1966-01-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Board exceeded its remedial authority by invalidating a collective bargaining agreement that predated the employer's unfair labor practices.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Floridan Hotel OF Tampa, Inc.
  300 F.2d 204· 5th Cir.· 1962-03-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order prohibiting the hotel from enforcing a rule against wearing union insignia was too broad. The rule, as applied to all employees regardless of public contact, was not supported by the Board's findings.
• Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  299 F.2d 114· D.C. Cir.· 1962-01-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board applied its rule regarding employer knowledge of concerted activity too strictly in this case.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  269 F.2d 694· 4th Cir.· 1959-06-26 ·cited 6×
  A labor union's picketing and boycott campaign to force employer recognition after employees have rejected the union in a Board-conducted election constitutes an unfair labor practice under § 8(b)(1)(A) of the NLRA.
• General Drivers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  247 F.2d 71· D.C. Cir.· 1957-05-09 ·cited 6×
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wytheville Knitting Mills, Inc.
  175 F.2d 238· 3d Cir.· 1949-06-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the employer was not required to reinstate two employees whose abusive conduct caused their co-workers to refuse to work with them, as such conduct was not protected concerted activity.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Revlon Prods. Corp.
  144 F.2d 88· 2d Cir.· 1944-07-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order to cease and desist unfair labor practices, reinstate employees, and provide back pay was enforceable, even after the death of one employee and the enlistment of another, and despite a subsequent collective bargaining
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Register PUB. Co.
  141 F.2d 156· 9th Cir.· 1944-02-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the employer's refusal to sign a collective bargaining agreement constituted an unfair labor practice, but the finding of discriminatory discharge and refusal to reinstate employees was unsupported by evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Keystone Freight Lines
  126 F.2d 414· 10th Cir.· 1941-11-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices, including employer domination of a union and discriminatory discharge of employees due to union activity, were supported by substantial evidence and that the Board's order should be enfor
• United States v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  968 F.2d 1472· 2d Cir.· 1991-11-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Election Officer's order requiring Commercial Carriers to allow campaign stickers on its vehicles was not supported by the All Writs Act and federal labor law, and thus reversed the district court's affirmation of that order and vacated sanctions.
• Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  814 F.2d 1530· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the National Labor Relations Board's findings that Rockwell International Corporation violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by threatening, warning, and discharging an employee due to her union involvement
• In re the Arb. Between Local ONE Amalgamated Lithographers OF Am. affiliated with Int'l Typographical Union AFL-CIO v. Stearns & Beale, Inc.
  812 F.2d 763· 2d Cir.· 1987-02-23 ·cited 4×
  The Joint Committee's award, when interpreted to only address work assignments and treat reassignment language as surplusage, should be affirmed.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sherwood Trucking Co.
  775 F.2d 744· 6th Cir.· 1985-10-28 ·cited 4×
  The court denied enforcement of the NLRB's order because there was not substantial evidence to support the finding that Phillips was a supervisor at the critical times, rendering statements about union affiliation inadmissible hearsay and failing to establish unlawful discriminat
• U.S. Elec. Motors v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  722 F.2d 315· 6th Cir.· 1983-12-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the NLRB's order directing a new election because it is not a final order, but affirmed the NLRB's findings of unfair labor practices supported by substantial evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Honeywell, Inc.
  722 F.2d 405· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Honeywell's policy prohibiting union-related materials on company bulletin boards, while allowing other non-business notices, was discriminatory and violated the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Henry Vogt Mach. Co.
  718 F.2d 802· 6th Cir.· 1983-10-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings that the company violated Sections 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act were supported by substantial evidence and that the majority misconstrued the standard of review and substantive legal st
• The Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  711 F.2d 134· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the employer committed unfair labor practices by denying pre-interview information and conferences, the Board could not order reinstatement and back pay for employees discharged for cause.
• The Davis Co. v. United Furniture Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  674 F.2d 557· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that false, misleading, and defamatory remarks by a union are not protected by the First Amendment or the National Labor Relations Act, and can lead to liability for damages.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. The Coca-Cola Co. Foods Div.
  670 F.2d 84· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-09 ·cited 4×
  The National Labor Relations Board can prohibit employer interference with concerted activities even before those activities materialize or are contemplated.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gen. Thermodynamics, Inc.
  670 F.2d 719· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that posting an overbroad no-solicitation and no-distribution rule, even if removed before its effective date and never enforced, violates Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act if employees are not effectively informed of its rescission, due to the po
• United Parcel Serv. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  654 F.2d 12· 6th Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding that an employee's refusal to open a trailer door constituted protected concerted activity was not supported by substantial evidence.
• Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  638 F.2d 140· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-02 ·cited 4×
  Substantial evidence supports the National Labor Relations Board's finding that Caterpillar Tractor Company violated the National Labor Relations Act by disciplining union steward Everett Cleveland on two occasions.
• S & W Motor Lines, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  621 F.2d 598· 4th Cir.· 1980-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an employer's refusal to provide layoff information for non-bargaining unit employees, even if potentially relevant to union claims, did not violate the duty to bargain under § 8(a)(5) without a demonstrated "need to know."
• Drobena v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  612 F.2d 1095· 8th Cir.· 1980-01-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's long-standing policy of not awarding back pay in cases where employees lost work due to unlawful union activity, without employer involvement, is valid and its application here was not an abuse of discretion.
• Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  600 F.2d 132· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the company's rules prohibiting employees from distributing or making "false" statements were overbroad and violated the NLRA, and that the company's discriminatory enforcement of its distribution rule also violated the Act. The court also affirmed the NLRB's
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bel-Air Mart, Inc.
  497 F.2d 322· 4th Cir.· 1974-05-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that discharging a guard for attending union meetings violates Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the NLRA, as guards retain Section 7 rights as employees.
• Thrift Drug Co. OF Pa. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  404 F.2d 1097· 6th Cir.· 1968-12-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices and its bargaining order were supported by substantial evidence and should be enforced.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Graber Mfg. Co., Inc.
  382 F.2d 990· 7th Cir.· 1967-09-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence on the record.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Millwrights & Mach. Erectors
  379 F.2d 679· 5th Cir.· 1967-06-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Union violated the National Labor Relations Act by threatening a member with fines and job loss for filing charges and by causing the employer to discriminate against him.
• Great Lakes Carbon Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  360 F.2d 19· 4th Cir.· 1966-04-27 ·cited 4×
  Superseniority provisions in a collective bargaining agreement that grant preferential standing to employees who worked during an economic strike are facially discriminatory and violate the National Labor Relations Act, regardless of the employer's specific intent or the timing o
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sellers
  346 F.2d 625· 9th Cir.· 1965-06-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the employer unlawfully assisted the union by creating the impression that only that union was acceptable, but found insufficient evidence for other alleged violations like management domination of the union or unlawful interrogation of applicants.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Belfry Coal Corp.
  331 F.2d 738· 6th Cir.· 1964-04-06 ·cited 4×
  The court granted enforcement of the National Labor Relations Board's order, finding it supported by substantial evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Falls Emp'rs' Council, Inc.
  277 F.2d 772· 9th Cir.· 1960-04-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the employers' actions in recalling locked-out employees to earn a limited amount of wages, thereby disqualifying them from unemployment benefits, did not violate sections 8(a)(3) or 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.
• Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of N. Am., Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  276 F.2d 34· 1st Cir.· 1960-03-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board erred by failing to consider the impact of a contract amendment excluding supervisors from the union, which made their subsequent participation in union activities an unfair labor practice. The case is remanded for further co
• Sw. Elec. Serv. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  194 F.2d 939· 5th Cir.· 1952-03-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the union representative's conduct near the polling place interfered with a free and fair election, warranting setting aside the Board's order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Goodyear Footwear Corp.
  186 F.2d 913· 7th Cir.· 1951-01-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's findings that the employer closed its plant and laid off employees to discourage union activity, violating the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. El Paso Elec. Co.
  133 F.2d 168· 5th Cir.· 1943-01-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that El Paso Electric Company was not in contempt of a prior decree enforcing a Board order. The company's actions did not violate the decree's prohibition against dominating or supporting labor organizations.
• Days INN Mgmt. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  930 F.2d 211· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an employer's use of a voter list during an election, when done for security purposes and with limited impact, does not constitute a per se violation of the National Labor Relations Act. However, threatening to reduce wages if a union wins is an unfair labor p
• Grady Delling v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  869 F.2d 1397· 10th Cir.· 1989-03-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that discharging a supervisor for refusing to falsify termination slips, which would have interfered with employees' rights to seek redress for unfair labor practices, constitutes an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Int'l Ass'n of Bridge
  864 F.2d 1225· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-08 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the NLRA by disciplining a member for filing unauthorized charges, applying the Wright Line test and rejecting the union's internal affairs defense.
• Bus. Servs. BY Manpower, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  784 F.2d 442· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an employer may not discharge employees for refusing to cross a lawful stranger picket line if the employer's business justification is not sufficiently compelling, balancing employee rights under Section 7 against employer operational needs.
• Wesley v. I.T.O. Corp. OF R.I.
  739 F.2d 683· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a supervisor, like Wesley, is not protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and that his claims were properly dismissed.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hudson Farms, Inc.
  681 F.2d 1105· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Hudson Farms' truck drivers and yard workers are employees, not agricultural laborers, under the Act, and therefore the Board's order is enforceable.
• Newport News Shipbuilding & DRY Dock Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  633 F.2d 1079· 4th Cir.· 1980-10-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the National Labor Relations Board's decision regarding a decertification petition, as the Board's investigation, though selective, was not arbitrary.