Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 204 F.2d 950 - National Labor Relations Board v. White Construction & Engineering Co.

National Labor Relations Board v. White Construction & Engineering Co.’s Empirical Analysis

204 F.2d 950 · 1953

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
April 1980
most recently cited

46 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1980 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Savair Manufacturing Co. (1973), National Labor Relations Board v. Air Control Products of St. Petersburg, Inc. (1964)

46 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

2301953196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 152 (§ 2 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) · 29 U.S.C. § 164 (§ 14 of the National Labor Relations Act)

Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Denver Building & Construction Trades Council · Packard Motor Car Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. American National Insurance · Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · May Department Stores Co. 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““that because the union’s business agent is demanding a ‘union shop’ agreement with the employer which has the effect of requiring respondent’s employees to eventually join the union, the whole proceeding violates the spirit of the ‘Right to Work’ provisions of section 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the ‘Florida- State Constitution, F.S. A., adopted November 7, 1944. The section in effect provides that the right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or non-membership in any labor union. In this connection respondent-points to section 14(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 164 (b), which provides that ‘Nothing in this subchapter shall g be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of 'employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.’””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Even if this provision is applicable here, and pretermitting the fact that the question is raised by an employer and not by an employee whose right to work would be affected, there is nothing in either of these provisions which relieves respondent of its duty to bargain with the duly accredited bargaining representative. These matters, if relevant at all, would pertain only to the kind of contract to be negotiated. It is the employer’s duty to negotiate in good faith, even though the parties are unable to agree on a contract, N. L. R. B. v. American Nat’l Ins. Co., 343 U.S. 395 , 72 S.Ct. 824 , 96 L.Ed. 1027 ; N. L. R. B. v. Mayer, 5 Cir., 196 F.2d 286 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““But the Board’s authority to conduct an investigation under section 9(c) of the Act, is not dependent upon such a showing. The preliminary investigation usually made, and the Board’s requirement that a petitioning union show that it represents a substantial number of employees in the bargaining unit, are for administrative purposes, to enable the Board to screen out petitions with little or no prospect of success.””
    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.