Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 102 F.3d 818 - National Labor Relations Board v. Fluor Daniel, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board v. Fluor Daniel, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

102 F.3d 818 · 1996

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
July 2006
most recently cited

18 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 152 (§ 2 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 157 (§ 7 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 556 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “applicants that had been classified as boilermakers and pipefitters in order to fill welder vacancies. 11 While Fluor Daniels was still its maintenance contractor, Big Rivers obtained an unexpected opportunity to sell additional power, delaying the originally scheduled start of the Wilson outage. As a result, some of the craftsmen who had been lined up for employment by Fluor Daniel obtained other work. In particular, Fluor Daniel developed a great need for boiler tube welders. Four individuals who had written”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) that the employer is covered by the Act; (2) that the applicant is covered by the Act; (3) that the applicant actually applied for a job and was qualified for a job for which the employer is seeking applicants; (4) despite his qualifications the applicant was not hired; (5) anti-union animus contributed to the decision not to hire an applicant; and (6) after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applications from persons with the applicant’s qualifications.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “2 ), obtained Fluor Daniel job applications from a Kentucky Employment Service office. He then distributed these applications to members who had indicated they would be willing to work as volunteer union organizers at Fluor Daniel. As a result of Edwards's efforts, the Boilermakers' Union returned 43 completed applications to Fluor Daniel. The company claims to have been unaware of the source of these applications at the time, but 42 of the 43 individuals wrote on their applications”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.