Section 7 Rights

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

• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mut. Maint. Serv. Co., Inc.
  632 F.2d 33· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the employer violated the NLRA by discharging an employee for union activity, the employee's fraudulent conduct in collecting unemployment benefits disqualifies him from reinstatement with back pay.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Markle Mfg. Co. OF SAN Antonio
  623 F.2d 1122· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board was not precluded from litigating strike misconduct in a second case, despite a prior consent order, because the first proceeding did not make findings of fact regarding the alleged misconduct. However, the court limited the
• Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  593 F.2d 1290· D.C. Cir.· 1979-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the Board's order as it stands, finding it consistent with Supreme Court precedent.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hicks-Ponder Co.
  458 F.2d 19· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the company violated Section 8(a)(1) by interfering with employee rights but did not violate Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) by discriminatorily discharging two employees.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transp., Inc.
  453 F.2d 193· 8th Cir.· 1971-12-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the respondents' refusal to bargain violated the Act because the union's request sufficiently defined the appropriate bargaining unit and the union possessed majority status.
• J. A. Hackney & Sons, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  426 F.2d 943· 4th Cir.· 1970-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the employer's reduction in workforce was not discriminatory because economic necessity left no reasonable alternative, despite prior anti-union statements.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. A & B Zinman, Inc.
  372 F.2d 444· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Union and Employers committed unfair labor practices by causing an employee's discharge due to his union political activities.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Am. Laundry Mach. Co.
  138 F.2d 889· 2d Cir.· 1943-10-29 ·cited 2×
  The court granted the National Labor Relations Board's motion to enforce its order against the respondent employer.
• Local 355 v. Pier 66 Co.
  599 F. Supp. 761· S.D. Fla.· 1984-12-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the union's claims alleging employer interference in employee decertification efforts constituted unfair labor practices preempted by the National Labor Relations Board's exclusive jurisdiction, and that the union lacked standing for a RICO claim due to insuff
• Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  374 F.2d 693· 6th Cir.· 1967-04-03 ·cited 1×
• Wilson Trophy Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  989 F.2d 1502· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-08
  The court held that Wilson Trophy Company committed unfair labor practices by interrogating, reprimanding, and discharging an employee for engaging in protected concerted activity, and by prohibiting wage discussions and paycheck openings in the warehouse.
• United Food & Commercial Workers Dist. Union Local ONE, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  975 F.2d 40· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-10
  The National Labor Relations Board properly determined that a union member's right to partially revoke their checkoff authorization for specific, separable payments is protected by the NLRA, and the union violated the Act by refusing to honor such a revocation.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Catalytic Indus. Maint. Co. (Cimco)
  964 F.2d 513· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-06
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's orders requiring CIMCO to bargain collectively and finding unfair labor practices were supported by law and substantial evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. C.E. Wylie Constr. Co.
  934 F.2d 234· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-03
  The court held that a National Labor Relations Board cease-and-desist order must be supported by findings demonstrating a likelihood of future violations at other sites or to other unions, and remanded for such findings if absent.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Aces Mech. Corp.
  837 F.2d 570· 2d Cir.· 1988-01-22
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board abused its discretion by refusing to defer to a prior arbitral decision, as the arbitral panel had considered the facts relevant to the subsequent unfair labor practice charge.
• Ruhen F. Lima v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  819 F.2d 300· D.C. Cir.· 1987-05-19
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's decision dismissing an unfair labor practice complaint was too conclusory and lacked sufficient reasoning for judicial review.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Laborers' Int'l Union OF N. Am., AFL-CIO
  810 F.2d 665· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-23
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the Union engaged in unfair labor practices was supported by substantial evidence, and enforced the Board's order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Health Care Logistics, Inc.
  794 F.2d 248· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-10
  The court enforced in part and denied in part the National Labor Relations Board's order against the employer for unfair labor practices.
• Peninsula Shipbuilders' Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  663 F.2d 488· 4th Cir.· 1981-09-21
  The court held that the union's requirement for employees to use specific union forms for check-off revocations, as applied, unlawfully interfered with employee rights under the NLRA.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mich. State Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, AFL-CIO
  660 F.2d 1095· 6th Cir.· 1981-01-29
  The court ordered the Union to cease and desist from certain coercive actions and to take specific steps to comply with prior judgments and orders, including posting notices and filing compliance statements.
• Carlson Roofing Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  627 F.2d 77· 7th Cir.· 1980-08-06
  The court held that suspending employees for protesting working conditions and supporting the union's position on crew size violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, but there was insufficient evidence to support a Section 8(a)(3) violation for antiunion motivation.
• ST. Regis Paper Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  623 F.2d 487· 6th Cir.· 1980-07-01
  The court held that employees striking to compel an employer to commit an unlawful act are not protected by the Act, and the employer did not violate the Act by firing them.
• Brewery Drivers & Helpers Local NO. 133 OF ST. Louis v. Grey Eagle Distribs., Inc.
  593 F.2d 288· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-07
  A union cannot sue for lost wages during a strike protesting an alleged contract breach if it failed to first pursue arbitration as provided in the collective bargaining agreement.
• Jeannette Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  532 F.2d 914· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-22
  The court held that the company's unwritten rule prohibiting employees from discussing wages was invalid on its face and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, and that the employee's discharge for violating this rule was unlawful.
• Packerland Packing Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  494 F.2d 293· 7th Cir.· 1974-04-03
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that the company violated the Act by transferring employees due to union activity.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. W. T. Grant Co.
  455 F.2d 518· 6th Cir.· 1972-02-15
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 40, Int'l Ass'n OF Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO
  451 F.2d 119· 2d Cir.· 1971-11-05
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that the union committed an unfair labor practice by causing an employee's termination for non-membership, not for failure to pay dues under a valid union-security clause.
• Bendix-Westinghouse Auto. Air Brake Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  443 F.2d 106· 6th Cir.· 1971-05-25
  The court held that the company's savings and stock ownership plan, which excluded union-represented employees from participation unless the union waived its bargaining rights, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act when introduced during a union organizing
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thomas Prods. Co.
  432 F.2d 1217· 6th Cir.· 1970-10-28
  The court held that substantial evidence on the record supported the Board's findings of Section 8(a)(1) violations by the employer.
• Food Store Emps. Union, Local 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen OF N. Am., AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  413 F.2d 407· D.C. Cir.· 1969-04-22
  The court affirmed the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices and its remedial orders, denying applications for review and modification.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bratten Pontiac Corp.
  406 F.2d 349· 4th Cir.· 1969-01-15
  The court held that the company violated § 8(a)(1) by extracting a two-year anti-union agreement from salesmen as a condition for increased benefits, but did not violate § 8(a)(5) by refusing to bargain due to a good faith doubt of the union's majority status.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Plankinton Packing Co.
  265 F.2d 638· 7th Cir.· 1959-04-16
  The court held that the Board's bargaining unit determination was arbitrary and its findings of unfair labor practices were unsupported by substantial evidence.
• Angwell Curtain Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  192 F.2d 899· 7th Cir.· 1951-11-29
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the National Labor Relations Board's finding that Stella Thomas was discharged due to her union activity, and therefore, the Board's order was enforceable.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Morris P. Kirk & SON, Inc.
  151 F.2d 490· 9th Cir.· 1945-08-30