International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis
426 F.2d 1243 · 1970
Citation profile
91 federal appellate · 3 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2013 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Food Store Employees Union, Local 347 (1974), Sullivan v. Murphy (1973)
91 federal appellate · 3 district · 11 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
Relies on Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission · Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · Green v. County School Board of New Kent County · Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. 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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(e)mployee interest in a union can wane quickly as working conditions remain apparently unaffected by the union or collective bargaining. When the company is finally ordered to bargain with the union some years later, the union may find that it represents only a small fraction of the employees.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“take such affirmative action ... as will effectuate the policies of this subchapter.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The ‘affirmative action’ clause of § 10(c) is not a mere charter of authority that the Board has the option to exercise or ignore. It is, as the Court has recently stated, a ‘broad command.’ N. L. R. B. v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Co., 396 U.S. 258 , 90 S.Ct. 417 , 24 L.Ed.2d 405 (1969). “We cannot discern, and the Board has not explained, on what basis it could or did conclude that its order under review is designed ‘to insure meaningful bargaining.’ Counsel for the Board tells us that the prospective order to bargain entered in this case is what is conventionally entered by the Board. Assuming the general validity of a purely prospective type of order, the case of brazen refusal to bargain, in violation of solemn obligations, presents special considerations. While such remedy may provide some bargaining from the date of the order’s enforcement, it operates in a real sense so as to be counter-productive, and actually to reward an employer’s refusal to bargain during the critical period following a union’s organization of his plant. The obligation of collective bargaining is the core of the Act, and the primary meanings fashioned by Congress for securing industrial peace, N. L. R. B. v. American National Insurance Co., 343 U.S. 395 , 72 S.Ct. 824 , 96 L.Ed. 1027 (1952). . . . Yet a prospective-only doctrine means that an employer reaps from his violation of the law an avoidance of bargaining which he considers an economic benefit. Effective redress for a statutory wron”
3 later decisions 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.