Violation Of Section 8(A)(2) Of The Nlra

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

• Irving AIR Chute Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  350 F.2d 176· 2d Cir.· 1965-08-18 ·cited 98×
  The court held that the company committed unfair labor practices by threatening employees, assisting an inside labor organization, and refusing to bargain, and that the NLRB's order to bargain was appropriate.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gaynor News Co., Inc.
  197 F.2d 719· 2d Cir.· 1952-06-24 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the employer's retroactive payment of benefits to union members only and its enforcement of an illegal union shop contract violated the National Labor Relations Act, but modified the Board's remedy to avoid undue harm to employees.
• W. Exterminator Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  565 F.2d 1114· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-07 ·cited 44×
  The court held that while there was substantial evidence Hoffman played a role in the discharge, the antiunion animus was not the dominant or moving cause, thus denying enforcement of section 8(a)(3) and 8(b)(2) violations.
• Wayside Press, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  206 F.2d 862· 9th Cir.· 1953-08-25 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of restraint, coercion, and domination were not supported by substantial evidence and should be set aside.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Prince MacAroni Mfg. Co.
  329 F.2d 803· 1st Cir.· 1964-03-31 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices by coercively interrogating an employee, creating an impression of surveillance, and threatening discharge for union activities. However, it denied enforcement of the Board's order regarding the discharge of an
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Clement Bros. Co., Inc.
  407 F.2d 1027· 5th Cir.· 1969-02-12 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence, including the use of circumstantial evidence to infer coercion, and that the Board's refusal to disclose non-witness prehearing statements was proper.
• 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. Ambox
  357 F.2d 138· 5th Cir.· 1966-03-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that while some of the Board's findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence, others were not, leading to partial enforcement of the Board's order.
• 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. Am. Dredging Co.
  276 F.2d 286· 3d Cir.· 1960-01-08 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Board's order requiring reimbursement of union fees to employees was not an appropriate remedy as it would unjustly penalize the employer and provide a windfall to employees.
• Lake City Foundry Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  432 F.2d 1162· 7th Cir.· 1970-10-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Board erred in excluding certain employees from the bargaining unit and in finding that the union had majority support based on authorization cards obtained through misrepresentation. Therefore, the company did not violate Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to re
• Truck Drivers AND Helpers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  379 F.2d 137· D.C. Cir.· 1967-05-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a union's promise to discriminate against employees based on political expediency, which impairs the employees' freedom of choice in selecting a bargaining representative, constitutes an unfair labor practice under Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Rela
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Henry Heide, Inc.
  219 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1955-01-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that an employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain with a certified union, even when faced with a rival union's petition and claims of majority status, and by subsequently recognizing and contracting with the rival union.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Wire Works, Inc.
  582 F.2d 153· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that Acme's withdrawal from multi-employer bargaining was untimely and that its refusal to execute the collective bargaining agreement constituted an unfair labor practice, entitling employees to reinstatement.
• Int'l Union v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  319 F.2d 428· 7th Cir.· 1963-06-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the employer unlawfully assisted a union, the employees were not coerced into membership or dues payment, and thus the Board's order requiring the employer to bargain with a rival union and refund dues was improper.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pac. Erectors, Inc.
  718 F.2d 1459· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-25 ·cited 20×
  A prehire agreement under NLRA § 8(f) becomes a binding collective bargaining agreement when the union establishes majority status at a jobsite, creating a rebuttable presumption of majority support through union membership and security clauses.
• Indus., Tech. & Prof'l Emps. Div., Nat'l Mar. Union OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  683 F.2d 305· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings of unfair labor practices and its order for dues reimbursement were supported by substantial evidence and proper application of the law.
• Suburban Transit Corp. & H.A.M.L. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  499 F.2d 78· 3d Cir.· 1974-05-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the employer's recognition of UTU and expedited bargaining did not constitute an unfair labor practice against Suburban, but disagreed on the finding against H.A.M.L.
• Lakeland BUS Lines v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  278 F.2d 888· 3d Cir.· 1960-04-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the company committed unfair labor practices, the Board's order requiring reimbursement of union dues was improper without proof of coercion, and the second order was unnecessary as the court's enforcement decree would provide sufficient remedy.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Park Edge Sheridan Meats, Inc.
  323 F.2d 956· 2d Cir.· 1963-10-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the respondents committed unfair labor practices by interfering with employees' rights, unlawfully assisting another union, and discriminating against employees regarding hire and tenure. The Board's order for back pay was also upheld.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Waukesha Lime & Stone Co., Inc.
  343 F.2d 504· 7th Cir.· 1965-04-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain with the Teamsters union, interrogating and threatening employees, and offering a contract to a minority union, thereby converting the laborers' strike into an unfair labor practice s
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Streamway Div. OF the Scott & Fetzer Co.
  691 F.2d 288· 6th Cir.· 1982-10-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the employee committee was not a labor organization under the Act and that employee interrogations during a survey did not violate the Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. FRY Foods, Inc.
  609 F.2d 267· 6th Cir.· 1979-11-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the National Labor Relations Board's findings that Fry Foods, Inc. violated the National Labor Relations Act through numerous unfair labor practices.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Schwab Foods, Inc.
  858 F.2d 1285· 7th Cir.· 1988-10-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order against Schwab Foods, Inc. for unfair labor practices, including restraining picketing and refusing to bargain in good faith, is enforceable.
• The Lawson Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  753 F.2d 471· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Board failed to properly apply the Wright Line analysis when finding Lawson violated sections 8(a)(1) and (3) by granting benefits and sponsoring an employee committee, but upheld findings of other section 8(a)(1) violations and section 8(a)(2) domination
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Vernitron Elec. Components, Inc.
  548 F.2d 24· 1st Cir.· 1977-01-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an employer's actions, including facilitating union meetings, paying employees for attendance, allowing supervisor presence during card signing, and granting hasty recognition, constituted unlawful assistance and interference with employee rights under the NLR
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. The Chardon Tel. Co.
  323 F.2d 563· 6th Cir.· 1963-10-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the employer violated the NLRA by promising economic benefits to discourage union support and by dominating an employee committee.
• Local 1814, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  735 F.2d 1384· D.C. Cir.· 1984-05-15 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge believes the Board's remedial order against the union is not supported by the record, as there's no evidence the individual officers' kickback scheme benefited the union as an entity.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Am. Beef Packers, Inc.
  438 F.2d 331· 10th Cir.· 1971-02-08 ·cited 8×
  The court granted the National Labor Relations Board's application for enforcement of its order against American Beef Packers, Inc.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. United States Ry. Equip. Co.
  424 F.2d 86· 7th Cir.· 1970-02-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the company's changes in work practices and job assignments were not retaliatory, but its promise of benefits to discourage unionization and its support of an inside labor committee constituted unfair labor practices.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Trosch
  321 F.2d 692· 4th Cir.· 1963-08-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act by recognizing and entering into a collective bargaining agreement with a minority union, even if done in good faith, as it constitutes unlawful support and interferes with employees' rights.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Magic Slacks, Inc.
  314 F.2d 844· 7th Cir.· 1963-03-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Board's findings of employer domination, sponsorship, and support of an employee committee were not supported by substantial evidence, and that the employer was denied a fair hearing due to the late introduction of new charges.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kiekhaefer Corp.
  292 F.2d 130· 7th Cir.· 1961-06-29 ·cited 8×
  The Court held that while the employer engaged in unfair labor practices by supporting KIWA, the Board exceeded its authority by ordering the withdrawal of recognition from KIWA and abrogation of the collective bargaining agreement, as this undermined industrial stability and the
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Castaways Mgmt., Inc.
  870 F.2d 1539· 11th Cir.· 1989-04-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the NLRB's findings of unfair labor practices, and the demolition of the employer's business did not render the NLRB's order moot.
• Am. President Lines, Ltd. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  340 F.2d 490· 9th Cir.· 1965-01-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Employee Relations Committee was a labor organization under the NLRA, but the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pallette Stone Corp., Inc.
  283 F.2d 641· 2d Cir.· 1960-10-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by interfering with unionization, assisting another union, and discharging employees.
• Coating Prods., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  648 F.2d 108· 2d Cir.· 1981-05-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order, including a bargaining order, was supported by substantial evidence and should be enforced, despite a weak explanation for the bargaining order.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. A & S Elec. DIE Corp. & A & S Steel Rule Die Corp.
  423 F.2d 218· 2d Cir.· 1970-03-11 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would deny enforcement of the order regarding alleged violations of § 8(a)(1) and (2) based on employer statements and would also deny overtime compensation due to insufficient evidence.
• 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. Goshen Litho, Inc.
  476 F.2d 662· 2d Cir.· 1973-04-18
  The court held that the employer committed unfair labor practices by coercive activities and discriminatory discharges, but the finding of constructive discharge for one employee was not supported by substantial evidence.