National Labor Relations Board v. Wagner Iron Works and Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers Shopmen's Local 471 (Afl), International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

92 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A statement * * * might seem * * * perfectly innocent * * *, including neither a threat nor a promise. But, when the same statement is made by an employer to his employees, and we consider the relation of the parties, the surrounding circumstances, related statements and events and the background of the employer's actions, we may find that the statement is a part of a general pattern which discloses action by the employer so coercive as to entirely destroy his employees' freedom of choice and action. 11 * * * If, when so considered, such statements form a part of a general pattern or course of conduct which constitutes coercion and deprives the employees of their free choice guaranteed by Section 7, such statements must still be considered as a basis for a finding of unfair labor practice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. National Labor Relations Board v. Sinclair Co.

2. “Thus, the Board has recently held that an employer may legally interrogate his employees as to their union membership in order to inform himself as to the validity of a union's claim of majority support. Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 N.L.R.B. No. 85. However, as the Board said, the object of interrogation must be within the law and an employer acts at his peril, lest his investigation become tainted and coercive when considered in conjunction with other activities which reveal a departure from strict neutrality.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. John L. Parks v. Atlanta Printing Pressmen And Assistant's Union No. 8

3. ““Obviously, the Act does not interfere with the employer’s right to conduct his business, and, in doing so, to select and discharge his employees. It proscribes the exercise of the right to hire and fire only when it is employed as a discriminatory device. N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 , 45, 57 S.Ct. 615 , 81 L.Ed. 893 ; United States Steel Co. v. N.L.R.B., 7 Cir., 196 F.2d 459 , 465-466.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. National Labor Relations Board v. Sebastopol Apple Growers Union