National Labor Relations Board v. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’s Empirical Analysis
317 F.2d 193 · 1963
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 1999 · most notably Hirsch v. Building And Construction Trades Council Of Philadelphia And Vicinity, Afl-Cio (1976), Local Union No. 519, United Association Of Journeymen And Apprentices Of The Plumbing And Pipe Fitting Industry Of The United States And Canada, Afl-Cio, Petitioner v. National Labor Relations Board (1969)
23 federal appellate · 1 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
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It seems, however, much more realistic to suppose that Congress framed a general rule covering the field of recognitional and organizational picketing, conducted under alternate sets of circumstances described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), and then excepted from the operation of the rule, as it applied to the circumstances set forth m subparagraph (C), a comparatively innocuous species of picket-mg having the immediate purpose of informing or advising the public, even though its ultimate object was success m recognition and organizalon' ****** “One of the principal difficulties in construing and applying subpara-graph (C) is that Section 8(b) (7) contains the partially synonymous words, ‘object’ and ‘purpose’, used in two distinct contexts but to which much of the same evidence is relevant. These are: ‘where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain * * * ’ and ‘for the purpose of truthfully advising the public * It does not necessarily follow that, where an object of the picketing is forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain, the purpose of the picketing, in the context of the second proviso, is not truthfully to advise the public, etc. The union may legitimately have a long range or strategic objective of getting the employer to bargain with or recognize the union and still the picketing may be permissive. This proviso gives the union freedom to appeal to the unorganized public for spontaneous popular pressure upon a”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the second proviso it is the difference in purpose which determines which is permissible picketing and which is not. [Pjublicity picketing is proscribed when it communicates more than the limited information expressly permitted by the second proviso or when it is apparently the purpose to advise organized labor groups or their members as shown by signal effects.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“" Provided further, that nothing in this subparagraph (C) shall be construed to prohibit any picketing or other publicity for the purpose of truthfully advising the public (including consumers) that an employer does not employ members of, or have a contract with, a labor organization, * * *. (Italics in original)”
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.