National Labor Relations Board v. Retail Clerks International Ass'n’s Empirical Analysis
211 F.2d 759 · 1954
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 1983 · most notably New York Telephone Co. v. Communications Workers of America (1971), McMullen v. Maxwell (1965)
24 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
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. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on J. I. Case Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. American National Insurance · National Labor Relations Board v. George P. Pilling & Son Co. · National Labor Relations Board v. Dalton Tel. Co.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A primary objective of § 2(11) of the Act, to which reference is made in this paragraph of the decree, was to assure to the employer his right to procure the loyalty and efficiency of his supervisors and managers. The reports which accompanied the legislative bill which Congress enacted into the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, made this abundantly clear. The reports were specific as to certain evils which the congressional committees thought they could avoid by excluding foremen and other supervisors from the operation of the Labor Act. Much emphasis was laid upon the desirability of assuring their independence of unions of the rank-and-file. It was noted that what had been happening in respect to unionizing of foremen under the former Act was ‘bad for output’ and hurt the free flow of commerce which the Act was intended to promote . . . . ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. That the agreement, if it did not cover all employees who performed clerks' work, should not contain a no-strike clause, unless such a clause contained suitable guarantees protecting clerks from loss of work or `against encroachments and abuses of union conditions on the job;' "2. That the agreement contain a clause requiring Safeway to fill vacancies in location managers' positions from the ranks of the clerks; "3. That the agreement contain a clause providing that no location manager or any other supervisor employee should perform clerks' work under terms and conditions of employment less favorable to the union than those provided in the clerks' contract; or, in the alternative, "4. That the agreement contain a clause providing that no location manager or any other supervisory employee should perform clerks' work.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) The Union is hereby recognized as the sole collective bargaining agency for an appropriate unit consisting of all employees working for the Employer within the jurisdiction of the Union, except * * * Store managers who are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and other persons classified by the Employer as supervisors under the law are specifically excluded hereunder, and none of the terms of this agreement shall be applicable to such supervisors.”
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.