Section 8(A)(1) Interference, Restraint, Or Coercion

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

• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. McGAHEY
  233 F.2d 406· 5th Cir.· 1956-05-18 ·cited 248×
  The court held that while the employer's interrogation and threats violated Section 8(a)(1), the discharges of Ferguson and Hollinger were not proven to be motivated by anti-union animus, thus not violating Section 8(a)(3).
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
  341 F.2d 750· 6th Cir.· 1965-02-27 ·cited 126×
  The court held that the parent corporation could be held liable for the subsidiary's unfair labor practices and that the Board's findings of unfair labor practices, including refusal to bargain, were supported by substantial evidence.
• Ind. Metal Prods. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  202 F.2d 613· 7th Cir.· 1953-03-10 ·cited 85×
  The court held that the Board's finding that Meyer was discharged for union activity was not supported by substantial evidence, but that the company did unlawfully interfere with employee rights through foreman interrogation, threats, and the establishment of a company-dominated
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Rapid Bindery, Inc.
  293 F.2d 170· 2d Cir.· 1961-07-11 ·cited 82×
  The court held that while the move of operations was economically motivated and not a violation of § 8(a)(3), the failure to notify the union of the move and discuss its impact on employees constituted a violation of § 8(a)(5), and certain employer statements violated § 8(a)(1).
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Threads
  308 F.2d 1· 4th Cir.· 1962-08-29 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the Board's finding of unlawful interrogation and surveillance was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the Company's expression of opposition to the union was privileged speech.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United Brass Works, Inc.
  287 F.2d 689· 4th Cir.· 1961-02-25 ·cited 70×
  Enforcement of the National Labor Relations Board's order is denied because the company had substantial, non-discriminatory reasons for discharging an employee, and therefore, striking employees were not entitled to reinstatement, and the company did not violate its duty to barga
• United Fireworks MFG. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  252 F.2d 428· 6th Cir.· 1958-03-05 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the Board's findings of employer interference and discharge of four employees for union activity were supported by substantial evidence, but the findings regarding three other employees were not.
• Snow v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  308 F.2d 687· 9th Cir.· 1962-09-28 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the employer's refusal to bargain was an unfair labor practice because they did not have a good faith doubt of the union's majority status, and that the company unlawfully refused to reinstate nine striking employees.
• Armstrong Cork Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  211 F.2d 843· 5th Cir.· 1954-03-31 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the employer's unilateral actions regarding wage increases and merit raises, and its interrogation and intimidation of employees regarding union activities, constituted unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pope Maint. Corp.
  573 F.2d 898· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-26 ·cited 56×
  The court held that Pope Maintenance Corporation is a statutory employer subject to the National Labor Relations Act, and its order to cease and desist unfair labor practices, reinstate strikers, and bargain with the union is enforceable.
• Nazareth Reg'l High Sch. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  549 F.2d 873· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-28 ·cited 56×
  A successor employer has a duty to bargain if a majority of its workforce is comprised of the predecessor's employees, but can unilaterally set initial terms unless it is 'perfectly clear' they intend to retain all employees on existing terms. Claims of unfair labor practices are
• Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  331 F.2d 176· 8th Cir.· 1964-04-28 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the employer violated Section 8(a)(2) by recognizing one union while a question of representation existed, influenced by its own unfair labor practices. However, the court reversed the Board's order to reinstate an employee for a Section 8(a)(4) violation due
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ritchie Mfg. Co.
  354 F.2d 90· 8th Cir.· 1965-12-14 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the employer engaged in unfair labor practices by discriminating against an employee due to suspected union activity and by interrogating and surveilling employees. The court enforced the National Labor Relations Board's order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Downtown Bakery Corp. & Bakery & Confectionery Workers
  330 F.2d 921· 6th Cir.· 1964-04-27 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the employer's refusal to bargain with ABC was based on a good faith doubt of majority status, and thus not an unfair labor practice. However, the employer did violate the Act by executing a collective bargaining agreement with BCW while rival union claims exi
• Schwob Mfg. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  297 F.2d 864· 5th Cir.· 1962-01-02 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were not supported by substantial evidence, and therefore, its order would not be enforced.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. BIG Three Welding Equip. Co.
  359 F.2d 77· 5th Cir.· 1966-04-21 ·cited 44×
  The court held that while the company committed unfair labor practices by threatening and discharging union leaders, two employees who admitted pilfering company property should not be reinstated.
• Utrad Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  454 F.2d 520· 7th Cir.· 1971-12-23 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the company violated Section 8(a)(2) by dominating and supporting an employee association, but reversed the Board's finding of coercion based on isolated employee-supervisor conversations.
• 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. Brennan's, Inc.
  366 F.2d 560· 5th Cir.· 1966-08-23 ·cited 36×
  The court held that Brennan's violated Section 8(a)(1) by interfering with employee organizing rights, but did not violate Section 8(a)(3) by constructively discharging an employee through transfer.
• Brewton Fashions, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  361 F.2d 8· 5th Cir.· 1966-05-10 ·cited 36×
  The court enforced the National Labor Relations Board's order, finding that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by coercing employees, interrogating them about union activities, and acquiescing in or encouraging the expulsion of union supporters.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ship Shape Maint. Co., Inc.
  474 F.2d 434· D.C. Cir.· 1972-12-01 ·cited 34×
• Crawford Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  386 F.2d 367· 4th Cir.· 1967-10-27 ·cited 34×
  The court should enforce the Board's bargaining order and order for reparations for discriminatory layoffs, as substantial evidence supports the findings of unfair labor practices.
• Reserve Supply Corp. OF L. I., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  317 F.2d 785· 2d Cir.· 1963-05-27 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order finding unfair labor practices and ordering reinstatement with back pay and interest was supported by substantial evidence and within the Board's remedial authority.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lamar Creamery Co.
  246 F.2d 8· 5th Cir.· 1957-06-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that job applicants are considered 'employees' under the Act for purposes of Section 8(a)(4), and that discrimination in hiring based on union activity or prior testimony is an unfair labor practice.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Clearfield Cheese Co., Inc.
  213 F.2d 70· 3d Cir.· 1954-05-07 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Board's order should be enforced, modified to deny reinstatement to strikers who engaged in picket line misconduct, as the employer did not condone such actions.
• 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. Taitel
  261 F.2d 1· 7th Cir.· 1958-10-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the National Labor Relations Board's findings that the employer engaged in unfair labor practices by interfering with employees' rights and refusing to bargain in good faith.
• Donn Prods., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  613 F.2d 162· 6th Cir.· 1980-01-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Board's finding of a threat of sham bargaining was not supported by substantial evidence, and therefore, a bargaining order was not warranted. Most other Section 8(a)(1) violations were affirmed.
• 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. Cosco Prods. Co.
  280 F.2d 905· 5th Cir.· 1960-06-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board failed to sustain its statutory burden of proof to establish unfair labor practices by substantial evidence, and therefore, enforcement of the Board's order was denied.
• 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. DEL REY Tortilleria, Inc.
  787 F.2d 1118· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices, including unlawful discharges and interference with employee rights, were supported by substantial evidence and enforced the Board's order.
• 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.
• Weather Tamer, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  676 F.2d 483· 11th Cir.· 1982-05-17 ·cited 23×
  The court held that while employer statements threatening plant closure and interrogating employees about union activity violated § 8(a)(1), the company's decision to close the plant was economically motivated and did not violate § 8(a)(3) or § 8(a)(5).
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sure-Tan, Inc.
  672 F.2d 592· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the employer's reporting of undocumented alien employees to the INS after union certification constituted a constructive discharge violating the NLRA, and that the Board's remedy of reinstatement and backpay was appropriate despite the employees' immigration s
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.
  322 F.2d 913· 9th Cir.· 1963-09-23 ·cited 22×
  The court should defer to the trial examiner's findings of fact and credibility assessments when substantial evidence supports them, even if the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Better Monkey Grip Co.
  243 F.2d 836· 5th Cir.· 1957-05-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the respondent's discharge of a supervisor for testifying violated the Act.
• Dubin-Haskell Lining Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  386 F.2d 306· 4th Cir.· 1967-11-10 ·cited 20×
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Stafford
  206 F.2d 19· 8th Cir.· 1953-08-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was no substantial evidence to support the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the respondents discriminatorily laid off employees due to concerted activity or union affiliation.
• Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  722 F.2d 1324· 7th Cir.· 1983-11-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the employer's rescheduling of vacations during a strike, based on its interpretation of the contract and past practice, did not constitute an unfair labor practice absent proof of antiunion animus, and that the Board's finding of such animus was not supported
• 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.
• The Powers Regulator Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  355 F.2d 506· 7th Cir.· 1966-01-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the National Labor Relations Board's findings that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by interfering with employee self-organization and supporting a favored union.
• Hyatt Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  939 F.2d 361· 6th Cir.· 1991-07-22 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the NLRB's decision that Hyatt violated labor laws by strictly enforcing timekeeping rules and discontinuing wage increases after unionization, but remanded the issue of whether the wage policy change also violated Section 8(a)(3) due to lack of articulated rea
• Peabody Coal Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  725 F.2d 357· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an employer violates its duty to bargain by unilaterally withholding benefit increases from unionized employees when those benefits are otherwise extended to similarly situated employees, and that engaging in limited bargaining over such changes does not waive
• C & W Super Mkts., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  581 F.2d 618· 7th Cir.· 1978-07-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order finding C&W Super Markets, Inc. committed unfair labor practices and ordering them to bargain with the union was supported by substantial evidence and should be enforced.
• Aeronca Mfg. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  385 F.2d 724· 9th Cir.· 1967-11-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings that the company discharged an employee due to union activities, rather than for the stated reasons, were supported by substantial evidence.
• General Teamsters v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  373 F.2d 661· D.C. Cir.· 1967-02-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence and that the Board acted within its authority.
• Butcher BOY Refrigerator Door Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  290 F.2d 22· 7th Cir.· 1961-04-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that substantial evidence on the record supported the Board's findings that the company committed unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act.
• Paul M. O'Neill Int'l Detective Agency, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  280 F.2d 936· 3d Cir.· 1960-06-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices under Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act were supported by substantial evidence, and the petitioner's execution of a contract with a non-compliant union cons
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Corning Glass Works
  204 F.2d 422· 1st Cir.· 1953-05-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an employer's supervisors expressing a preference for one union over another, without threats or promises, and without evidence of disparate treatment in organizational opportunities, does not constitute an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relati