Graham Architectural Products Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis
697 F.2d 534 · 1983
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (1986), National Labor Relations Board v. Motorola, Inc. (1993)
33 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 159 (§ 9 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Gissel Packing Co. · Republic Aviation Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board · Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers of America, Local Union No. 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. · Boire v. Greyhound Corp.
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer— (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title; 2 (5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“discuss a range of subjects of mutual interest,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An employer’s questioning becomes coercive and runs afoul of section 8(a)(1) when it “suggests to the employees that the employer may take action against them because of their pro-Union sympathies ____” Although the Board need not show that the employer’s interrogation actually had any coercive effect, the questioning must reasonably have tended to coerce under the circumstances.”
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.