National Labor Relations Board v. Vemco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
989 F.2d 1468 · 1993
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Wf Bolin Company v. National Labor Relations Board (1995), Uforma/Shelby Business Forms, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (1997)
27 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 157 (§ 7 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 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. · National Labor Relations Board v. Transportation Management Corp. · United States v. Security Industrial Bank · Florida v. Royer
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer ... by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“findings of fact, as well as its application of law to fact, may not be disturbed where substantial evidence on the record taken as a whole supports the Board's findings and conclusions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A section 8(a)(3) violation consists of 'a discharge or other adverse action that is based in whole or in part on antiunion animus' or, alternately worded, section 8(a)(3) is violated if 'the employee's protected conduct [is] a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action.' " NLRB v. Vemco, Inc., 989 F.2d 1468 , 1476-77 (6th Cir.) (quoting NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 , 401 (1983)), amended by 997 F.2d 1149 (1993). 31 In Birch Run Welding & Fabricating, Inc. v. NLRB, 761 F.2d 1175 (6th Cir.1985), this court held: 32 In a case involving lay-offs, the General Counsel must prove that anti-union animus partially motivated or contributed to the lay-off decision. If this prima facie case is established, then the employer must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the employees would have been laid-off even if they had not engaged in protected activity. 33 Id. at 1179 (citations omitted). An employer's stated reasons must be rejected if deemed pretextual in light of the circumstances surrounding the employer's actions. See generally Gatliff Coal Co. v. NLRB, 953 F.2d 247 , 251 (6th Cir.1992) ("[U]nlawful discharge can be proved by circumstantial evidence warranting an inference of unlawful motivation. This is particularly true in cases such as this where employers will not readily admit discharge was due to engagement in protected concerted activities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.