National Labor Relations Board v. J. J. Collins' Sons, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
332 F.2d 523 · 1964
Citation profile
30 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2004 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Tennessee Packers, Inc. (1967), National Labor Relations Board v. Bata Shoe Co. (1967)
30 federal appellate ·
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. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Joclin Manufacturing Co. · National Labor Relations Board v. O. K. Van Storage, Inc. · National Labor Relations Board v. Weyerhaeuser Co. · Olson Rug Co. 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is conceded that the Board's exercise of `informed discretion' in defining an appropriate bargaining unit is not to be upset unless the evidence compels a conclusion that it has acted arbitrarily, or from bias, or prejudice. But unlike in the cases cited, the bargaining unit here involved was defined and its limits circumscribed by stipulation of the company and the Union. And the Board's exercise of discretion was restricted by the Board to its approval of the unit as submitted by the parties. The factor of `community of interest' and other elements of Toporek's duties might well have formed a rational basis for having included the job in the unit under some descriptive designation identifying it. But the Board did not do so. It did not so exercise the discretion it may have had in such connection. And, considerations applicable when the Board makes its own independent determination defining the appropriate bargaining unit do not control here where it is merely interpreting the language used by the parties to define and limit the unit in a stipulation for a consent election. The primary question here is what the parties intended. N.L. R.B. v. Joclin Manufacturing Company, 2 Cir., 314 F.2d 627 , 633-634.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“All paper cutting machine operators, all folding machine set-up men, and all bookbinders and their apprentices”
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.