Medo Photo Supply Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

708 federal appellate · 7 district · 74 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 977 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]t is a violation of the essential principle of collective bargaining and an infringement of the Act for the employer to disregard the bargaining representative by negotiating with individual employees ... with respect to wages, hours and working conditions.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ingredion Inc.

2. ““The statute guarantees to all employees the right to bargain collectively through their chosen representatives. Bargaining carried on by the employer directly with the employees, whether a minority or majority, who have not revoked their designation of a bargaining agent, would be subversive .of the mode of collective bargaining which the statute has ordained, as the Board, the expert body in this field, has found. Such conduct is therefore an interference with the rights guaranteed by § 7 and a violation of § 8(1) of the Act. There is no necessity for us to determine the extent to which or the periods for which the employees, having designated a bargaining representative, may be foreclosed from revoking their designation, if at all, or the formalities, if any, necessary for such a revocation. Compare Labor Board v. Century Oxford Mfg. Co., 140 F.2d 541 , C.C.A.2d, decided February 15, 1944. But orderly collective bargaining requires that the employer be not permitted to go behind the designated representatives, in order to bargain with the employees themselves, prior to such a revocation. And it is the fact here, as found by the Board, that the employees did not revoke their designation of the union as their bargaining agent at any time while they were themselves negotiating with petitioner, and that they left the union, as they had promised petitioner to do, only when petitioner had agreed to give them increased wages.” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Branch v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board

3. “cannot, as justification for its refusal to bargain with the union, set up the defection of union members which it had induced by unfair labor practices”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. National Labor Relations Board v. A. W. Thompson, Inc. · National Labor Relations Board v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.