Vulcan Basement Waterproofing of Illinois, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis
219 F.3d 677 · 2000
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 2024
9 federal appellate · 2 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. § 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)
Relies on Steven J. Holman and Karen L. Holman v. State of Indiana and Indiana Department of Transportation · Carry Companies of Illinois, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Joy Recovery Technology Corp. · National Labor Relations Board v. McCullough Environmental Services, Inc. · Pioneer Natural Gas Company 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he employer can . . . avoid a finding of an unfair labor practice if it can show that it would have taken the action [Gibson's termination] regardless of the employee's union activities.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Regarding imputation, courts have generally rejected ... attempts to simply attribute a foreman or supervisor’s knowledge of an employee’s union activities to the company. Automatically imputing such knowledge to a company improperly removes the ... burden of proving knowledge. We have rejected other attempts ... to so lighten [the] burden of proof. And we reject any attempt to do so here: [the employer] or its decision-maker ... did not know of [the employee’s] union activities just because [the supervisor] knew about them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]o prove a violation [of Section 8(a)(1) or (3)], the NLRB's General Counsel must `prove that anti-union animus was a substantial or motivating factor in the employer's decision to make adverse employment decisions'”
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.