-
864 F.2d 927·
1st Cir.·
1988-12-28
·cited 71×
The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the potential harm to union members from implementing new work rules was insufficient to justify overriding the limitations of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and granting injunctive relief pending arbitration.
-
787 F.2d 780·
1st Cir.·
1986-04-09
·cited 39×
The court held that the dispute was minor, entitling MEC to an injunction against a union strike pending adjustment procedures.
-
668 F.2d 276·
7th Cir.·
1981-12-30
·cited 34×
A district court may grant a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending arbitration if the sale of corporate assets would frustrate the arbitral process.
-
833 F.2d 700·
7th Cir.·
1987-11-17
·cited 32×
The court held that the unions' objection to the railway company's unilateral addition of drug screen urinalysis to routine employee medical examinations constitutes a minor dispute under the Railway Labor Act, subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjust
-
788 F.2d 794·
1st Cir.·
1986-04-09
·cited 30×
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the claim regarding the EDCO/COED route and Concord switching assignment for lack of jurisdiction, as it constituted a collateral attack on an ICC order exempting the transaction from RLA requirements.
-
745 F.2d 370·
6th Cir.·
1984-10-04
·cited 30×
The court held that the railroad's discontinuation of 'checking in and out' pay was arguably sanctioned by the collective bargaining agreements, thus constituting a minor dispute within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, not a major dispute subj
-
830 F.2d 741·
7th Cir.·
1987-09-21
·cited 28×
The court held that the district court correctly determined the disputes were "minor" under the Railway Labor Act, properly enjoined strikes, and that the conditions placed on the injunction to maintain the status quo were appropriate to preserve the adjustment board's jurisdicti
-
551 F.2d 1141·
9th Cir.·
1977-04-06
·cited 26×
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action and granting summary judgment, as the fire-hire policy was intertwined with the major dispute regarding crew complement, necessitating a status quo injunction.
-
845 F.2d 1187·
3d Cir.·
1988-04-25
·cited 24×
The court held that Conrail's unilateral addition of drug screening to routine employee medical examinations constitutes a "major dispute" under the Railway Labor Act, requiring bargaining rather than being a "minor dispute" subject to the National Railroad Adjustment Board.
-
855 F.2d 1277·
7th Cir.·
1988-08-23
·cited 21×
The court held that the dispute over the sale of a rail line and its impact on employees is a 'minor dispute' under the Railway Labor Act, subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, and thus a strike over it can be enjoined.
-
645 F.2d 96·
1st Cir.·
1981-04-10
·cited 20×
The court held that the dispute over the withdrawal of crew dispatchers was a "minor dispute" under the Railway Labor Act, not a "major dispute," and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction.
-
711 F.2d 1020·
11th Cir.·
1988-08-12
·cited 18×
The court held that the standard for issuing a status quo injunction pending administrative review should not require a "virtually certain" case, especially when administrative review would otherwise be meaningless.
-
884 F.2d 709·
3d Cir.·
1988-12-22
·cited 14×
The court held that SEPTA's random drug testing program for safety-sensitive employees is constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment, but its implementation for employees covered by the Railway Labor Act constitutes a minor dispute subject to arbitration.
-
862 F.2d 1266·
7th Cir.·
1988-11-18
·cited 14×
The court held that the dispute over Burlington's trackage rights agreement with its subsidiary, which aimed to alter crew consist, was a major dispute under the Railway Labor Act, requiring status quo maintenance and mediation.
-
310 F.2d 513·
7th Cir.·
1962-11-28
·cited 14×
The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not deprive the district court of the power to grant an injunction pending appeal, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in doing so.
-
827 F.2d 330·
8th Cir.·
1987-08-25
·cited 12×
The court held that the amendment of an employee drug rule constituted a major dispute under the Railway Labor Act, justifying a status quo injunction, and that the rule had become an implied term of the collective bargaining agreement through long-standing practice.
-
826 F.2d 1141·
1st Cir.·
1987-08-18
·cited 10×
A district court lacks jurisdiction to issue a status quo injunction in a minor dispute under the Railway Labor Act, absent exigent circumstances.
-
849 F.2d 145·
5th Cir.·
1988-06-23
·cited 8×
The Staggers Act does not implicitly repeal the Railway Labor Act, and a court may issue an injunction to compel bargaining under the RLA even after the ICC has approved a transaction without imposing labor protective conditions.
-
869 F.2d 1518·
Fed. Cir.·
1989-03-10
·cited 7×
The court held that a dispute over the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, even if one party's interpretation seems implausible, is a minor dispute under the Railway Labor Act and falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of arbitration, not federal courts.
-
620 F.2d 602·
7th Cir.·
1980-02-05
·cited 7×
The court held that attorney fees awarded under Section 7 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act are limited to the amount of the injunction bond posted, and since a zero bond was posted for the improperly issued TRO, no attorney fees could be awarded.
-
885 F.2d 697·
10th Cir.·
1989-09-15
·cited 6×
The court held that federal courts should not decide the merits of a labor dispute, even when considering injunctive relief pending arbitration, as this encroaches on the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
-
843 F.2d 1119·
8th Cir.·
1988-04-05
·cited 6×
The court held that the Railway Labor Act's status quo provisions require maintaining union dues check-off and security provisions as working conditions, even if contracts contain limitations, until statutory procedures are exhausted.
-
844 F.2d 1218·
6th Cir.·
1988-04-14
·cited 5×
The dissenting judge would dismiss the union's appeal because the union lacks equitable standing to appeal an order it has refused to obey.
-
898 F.2d 1393·
9th Cir.·
1990-03-14
·cited 3×
The court held that the classification of a labor dispute as "minor" under the Railway Labor Act is a jurisdictional issue, not a decision on the merits, and the district court correctly found it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the employer's actions.
-
141 So. 3d 729·
Fla. 1st DCA·
2014-07-07
·cited 2×
An order granting a temporary injunction must contain clear, definite factual findings supporting each of the four necessary elements, and failure to do so requires reversal and remand.
-
935 F.2d 1370·
2d Cir.·
1991-06-20
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction against the employer's random drug testing program because it did not sufficiently frustrate the arbitral process.
-
11th Cir.·
2023-03-08
The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the dispute was minor under the Railway Labor Act.