National Labor Relations Board, Printing Specialties District Council Number 2, as Successor to Printing Specialties District Council Number 1, Petitioner-Intervenor v. Litton Financial Printing Division, a Division of Litton Business Systems, Inc., Printing Specialties District Council Number 2, as Successor to Printing Specialties District Council Number 1 v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis
893 F.2d 1128 · 1990
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 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))
Relies on Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Katz · United Mine Workers of America v. M Pennington Local Union No 189 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Nolde, the Supreme Court did not directly rely on the accruability of the right asserted in concluding that the severance pay grievance at issue in that case was arbitrable. Instead, the Court viewed the grievance as “arising under” the expired contract because it “hinge[d] on the interpretation ultimately given the contract clause.” Indeed the Nolde Court held that “where the dispute is over a provision of the expired agreement, the presumptions favoring arbi-trability must be negated expressly or by clear implication.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“assume without deciding that the Board's Indiana & Michigan decision is a reasonably defensible construction of the section 8(a)(5) duty to bargain.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“capable of accruing or vesting to some degree during the life of the contract.”
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.