Cross Baking Co. v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 federal appellate ·

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

1. “[1] We agree with the Board, but we do not agree with certain arguments it advanced in this court. Von Dreden [the employee chiefly responsible for the assault] was the principal in-plant union advocate. The Board regards it important that she was not shown to be a paid union agent. The question, however, is not the culpability of the union, but whether an atmosphere of fear and coercion was created in fact. See Home Town Foods, Inc. v. NLRB, 5 Cir., 1967, 379 F.2d 241 , 244; Shoreline Enterprises of America, Inc. v. NLRB, 5 Cir., 1959, 262 F.2d 933 , 942. It does not follow that fear would be less effective if it had an unofficial origin. Indeed, we can visualize situations where it might be more effective. If .union officials instigated violence, anti-union employees might gain adherents to get rid, once and for all, of a belligerent union by voting against it, whereas if the atmosphere was the product of co-employees, the rest of the employees might feel they were going to be left with a disagreeable situation whatever should happen in the election, and hence had best learn to live with it. In any event, we agree with the earlier position of the Board that, regardless of whether coercive acts are shown to be attributable to the union itself, “[t]he important fact is that such conditions existed and that a free election was thereby rendered impossible.” Diamond State Poultry Co., 1953, 107 N.L.R.B. 3 , 6.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zeiglers Refuse Collectors, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. ARA Services, Inc.

2. “Adequate time to reply must mean adequate time to make an effective reply”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beaird-Poulan Division, Emerson Electric Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · Certainteed Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board