Bacashihua v. United States Postal Service’s Empirical Analysis
859 F.2d 402 · 1988
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Bryant v. Bell Atlantic Maryland, Inc. (2002), Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc. (2003)
27 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 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. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 39 U.S.C. § 1208 · 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act)
Relies on Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc. · National Farmers Union Insurance v. Crow Tribe of Indians · Medlin v. Mann
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Objections to the bill were urged by Mr. Andrew Furuseth as representing the Seamen's Union, Mr. Furuseth taking the position that seamen's wages came within admiralty jurisdiction and should not be subject to an agreement to arbitrate. In order to eliminate this opposition, the committee consented to an amendment to Section 1 as follows: 'but nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.' " 43 It thus appears that the draftsmen of the Act were presented with the problem of exempting seamen's contracts. Seamen constitute a class of workers as to whom Congress had long provided machinery for arbitration. (footnote omitted) In exempting them the draftsmen excluded also railroad employees, another class of workers as to whom special procedure for the adjustment of disputes had previously been provided. (footnote omitted) Both these classes of workers were engaged directly in interstate or foreign commerce. To these the draftsmen of the Act added "any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]f any class of worker is engaged in interstate commerce, it is postal workers.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[I]t is well established that when a collective bargaining agreement establishes a mandatory grievance procedure and grants the union the exclusive right to pursue claims on behalf of an aggrieved employee, as in this case, the results obtained by the union are normally conclusive of the employee’s rights under the agreement subject to very limited judicial review. (Citation omitted.) Accordingly, the aggrieved employee normally lacks independent standing to attack the results of the grievance process. (Citations omitted.) An individual employee may, however, challenge the arbitration award where he or she alleges and proves that the union breached its duty of fair representation, thereby subverting the arbitral process.””
2 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.