Business Law Chapter 6 The Court rejected these contentions on the following

Chapter 6 REGULATION OF

UNION ACTIVITIES

Labor & Employment Law 48

Case Questions

6.1, Thornhill v. State of Alabama, p. 206

1. (Q.) State the gist of Section 3448 of the Alabama Code.

2. (Q.) What facts gave rise to the Thornhill indictment?

(A.) Thornhill, a union member, was one of a number of picketers at the plant of Brown

3. (Q.) Did the Supreme Court hold Section 3448 invalid on its face?

4. (Q.) What defense of the statute was made by the state? How was the defense disposed of?

(A.) The state said that the purpose of the statute was to protect the community from

6.2, Milk Wagon Drivers’ Union of Chicago v. Meadowmoor Dairies, Inc., p. 208

1. (Q.) Describe the “vendor system” of milk distribution.

2. (Q.) Had the union previously resorted to violence?

Chapter 6 Regulation of Union Activities

Labor & Employment Law 49

3. (Q.) What question does the United States Supreme Court say is before it?

(A.) The question before the Court is whether a state may enjoin peaceful picketing

4. (Q.) Did the Court qualify the Thornhill decision?

5. (Q.) Is the scope of the injunction confined to a particular physical area?

6. (Q.) State the rule of law developed by the case.

(A.) Peaceful picketing enmeshed with contemporaneously violent conduct may be enjoined

6.3, Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation v. United Steelworkers of America, p. 210

1. (Q.) What workers did the pickets exclude from the plant?

2. (Q.) Suppose regular production workers were the only ones excluded. Would this have

made a dif-ferrous in the decision of the court?

3. (Q.) How many pickets were at the main entrance?

4. (Q.) How did the court characterize the picket line in its analogy?

5. (Q.) State the rule of law of this case.

6.4, Nash et al. v. The State of Texas, p. 211

1. (Q.) Summarize the facts of the case.

(A.) From March 15 to March 28 some 90 arrests were made. Anyone who approached the

2. (Q.) Assess the fairness of the ex parte temporary restraining order granted on March 14.

Chapter 6 Regulation of Union Activities

Labor & Employment Law 50

(A.) Ex parte proceedings, where the court issues a temporary restraining order based on

3. (Q.) Was the 50-foot provision justified by the state’s interest in preventing violence?

(A.) Two picketers standing within 50 feet of one another do not forebode violence. The

4. (Q.) What purpose does picketing serve?

(A.) Picketing provides an opportunity for diverse groups to express their ideas publicly.

6.5, Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, p. 218

1. (Q.) State the Babcock rule as set forth in the majority opinion. Is the exception to the rule a

broad one?

(A.) The Babcock rule is that an employer cannot be compelled to allow distribution of

2. (Q.) Did the nonemployee union organizers have reasonable access to Lechmere employees

outside of the employer’s property?

(A.) The Supreme Court found that they did have reasonable access to the employees. It

3. (Q.) Did the dissent agree that there was sufficient access given the union organizers since

they were able to hold up signs from a grassy strip adjacent to the highway?

(A.) No. The dissent states that the Court in Babcock recognized that actual communication

Chapter 6 Regulation of Union Activities

Labor & Employment Law 51

6.6, NVE Constructors, Inc. v. NLRB, p. 222

1. (Q.) How are employers protected under the Act from being pressured to enter prehire

agreements with minority unions?

(A.) If a non-certified union is picketing an employer, the picketed employer may file an

2. (Q.) How are employees protected from the effects of a prehire agreement in which a

minority union is allowed to reach an agreement with the employer?

(A.) Under Section 8(f) of the Act employees may challenge a prehire agreement at any time

6.7, F.A. Wilhelm Construction Co., Inc. v. Carpenters, p. 226

1. (Q.) Did the reserve gate system work as intended in this case?

(A.) No. Under the reserve gate system, one gate or entrance is used for employees of the

2. (Q.) Does the plaintiff in Section 303 lawsuit for damages arising from a violation of Section

secondary employer?

(A.) Yes. The plaintiff in this case, Wilhelm Construction Co., had to prove that the

3. (Q.) What evidence exists that the carpenters union intended to exert pressure on the neutral

or secondary employer in this case, Whilhelm Construction Co.?

(A.) The carpenters union did not clarify its intent to limit the picket call to off-duty

Chapter 6 Regulation of Union Activities

Labor & Employment Law 52

6.8, NLRB v. Fruit and Vegetable Packers and Warehousemen, Local 760 (Tree Fruits Inc.), p. 230

1. (Q.) What was the union conduct complained of by Safeway stores?

(A.) Safeway charged NLRA violations because of the handbill distribution and peaceful

2. (Q.) On what grounds did the NLRB prohibit the picketing?

(A.) The NLRB held that the NLRA prohibits all consumer picketing at a secondary

3. (Q.) How does the Supreme Court view the legality of this boycott?

4. (Q.) Is peaceful secondary activity against one product of a multiproduct retailer prohibited

by the NLRA according to the Tree Fruits decision?

(A.) No. The Court in Tree Fruits found that peaceful secondary activity against one product

6.9, NLRB v. Retail Clerks, Local 1001 (Safeco Title Insurance Co.), p. 232

1. (Q.) Was the union’s distribution of handbills a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the

NLRA?

(A.) Section 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act does not prohibit “publicity, other

2. (Q.) State the rule of the case.

(A.) A union’s secondary appeal against the central product sold by neutral employers (in

3. (Q.) Compare the impact on neutral employers of responsive consumer action in the Tree

Fruits case to that in the Safeco case.

(A.) If the appeal succeeds in Tree Fruits, it induces the neutral retailer to reduce its order for

Chapter 6 Regulation of Union Activities

4. (Q.) Does the Safeco decision modify the Tree Fruits decision?

(A.) Yes. Under Tree Fruits it was permissible under Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act for the

union involved in a labor dispute with a primary employer to conduct peaceful

6.10, DeBartolo Corp. (DeBartolo II) v. Florida Gulf Coast Building and Construction Trades Council, p.

233

1. (Q.) Why didn’t the Supreme Court give its usual deference to the Board’s interpretation of

the statute in this case?

(A.) The Court did not give the usual deference to the Board’s interpretation of Section

Author’s Comment:

The constitutional question involved First Amendment freedom of speech since the

handbills here truthfully revealed the existence of a labor dispute and urged potential

mall customers to follow a wholly legal course of action, namely, not to patronize the

retailers doing business in the mall.

2. (Q.) Is picketing qualitatively different from handbilling?

(A.) Yes. Picketing is a mixture of conduct and communication, with the conduct element

3. (Q.) Did the Court conclude that the handbilling in this case had a coercive effect on the

secondary employers?

Chapter 6 Regulation of Union Activities

Labor & Employment Law 54

(A.) No. The Court concluded that handbilling, without picketing, does not “coerce”

4. (Q.) Assume that the Bakery Workers’ Union is on strike against a bakery whose products

are sold at a local supermarket. Compare the action the union may take against the local

supermarket under Tree Fruits and DeBartolo II.

(A.) Under Tree Fruits the union may picket outside the supermarket, asking the public not

6.11, United Rentals v. Indiana Constructors Inc. p. 236

1. (Q.) What rationale exists for the construction industry proviso allowing unions in the

construction industry to negotiate hot cargo provisions in their collective bargaining

agreements?

(A.) The construction industry exception to the Section 8(e) prohibition on hot cargo

2. (Q.) Since United Rentals employees are not engaged in construction, are they exempt from

the construction industry proviso?

(A.) The United Rentals employees are not exempt from the construction industry proviso

6.12, National Woodwork Manufacturers Association v. NLRB, p. 238

1. (Q.) Define the term hot cargo clause.

(A.) A hot cargo clause is an agreement between an employer and a union under which the

2. (Q.) Why was Section 8(e) of the Landrum-Griffin Act made law?

Chapter 6 Regulation of Union Activities

3. (Q.) What test did the Supreme Court set out for determining whether the “will not handle”

clause and its enforcement were in violation of Section 8(e) and Section 8(b)(4)(B)?

(A.) The Court specified that an inquiry must be made into whether, under all the

4. (Q.) State the findings of the Supreme Court concerning the objective of the union’s “will not

handle” clause.

(A.) The Supreme Court held that the interest or objective of the “will not handle” clause was

6.13, U.S. Information Systems, Inc. v. IBEW, Local 164, p. 240

1.

a violation of Section 8(b)(4).

(A.) The picketing by Local 164 was not against Star-Lo, the contractor that utilizes Local 164

2. (Q.) Area standards picketing is legal. Was this a valid defense for Local 164?

(A.) No. In order

3. (Q.) Does Section 303 of the LMRA allow a private lawsuit against a union for damages

caused by secondary picketing?

(A.) Yes. Section 303 of the LMRA provides for direct damages suits in federal court against

Chapter Questions and Problems, p. 241

1. (Q.) Distinguish between the strike and the boycott and between the boycott and the

picketing weapons in labor disputes.

Chapter 6 Regulation of Union Activities

Labor & Employment Law 56

(A.) To strike means to cease working. To boycott means to refuse to patronize, to refuse to

2. (Q.) Can secondary activity be found at a single building site? On a primary employer’s own

property?

(A.) It may occur whenever and wherever a second independent business is affected,

3. (Q.) To what extent may consumer picketing be carried on legally?

(A.) Consumer picketing may be carried on to the extent that the specific and correct facts

4. (Q.) What are the dual objectives of Section 8(b)(4) of the NLRA?

(A.) The dual objectives of Congress in enacting Section 8(b)(4) were to preserve the right of

5. (Q.) What was the purpose of including unfair labor practices for labor organizations in the

NLRA in 1947?

(A.) Union unfair labor practices were added to protect employers and employees from

6. (Q.) Does Section 8(b)(3) regarding a labor organization’s duty to bargain collectively

impose any more duties than Section 8(a)(5) regarding an employer’s duty to bargain

collectively? Explain.

(A.) Technically, no; actually, yes. The unions usually represent large numbers of workers,

7. [Coercion by labor unions and causing the employer to discriminate, Section 6.1.] This case is an

example of an unlawful union security clause. The portion of this agreement requiring

exclusive referral of “members” to the employer or the hiring of persons “accepted by the

union” is discriminatory in violation of Section 8(b)(2) as read in conjunction with Section

Chapter 6 Regulation of Union Activities

Labor & Employment Law 57

8. [Featherbedding, Section 6.1.] The Board must see if there is any performance of work

whatsoever, not merely the performance of unwanted work. Here the steward has

9. [Recognitional objective of picketing, Section 6.5.] This picketing is a violation of Section

8(b)(7)(C). The use of pickets was contingent on whether the request for recognition was

granted. As an uncertified union, Local 101’s recognitional picketing, though peaceful and

10. [Picketing and the First Amendment, Section 6.2.] Like the statute in Thornhill, this statute is

overbroad and an unconstitutional restriction on the exercise of rights guaranteed by the

First and Fourteenth Amendments. Through its requirement for a permit, the ordinance

imposes a “prior restraint” on constitutionally protected speech. Quoting Thornhill, “The

11. [Violent picketing and mass picketing, Sections 6.2 and 6.3.] Picketing marred by violence and

intimidation is illegal and subject to state court injunction. Meadowmoor [Section 6.2]

explicitly outlines the factors that allow any state court to enjoin violent behavior through its

12. [Informational picketing and recognitional picketing, Section 6.5.] Under Section 8(b)(7) the Board

must decide if the facts show an effort by a noncertified union to force recognition or

bargaining from an employer. The Board must look to see if a recognition petition was filed

by the picketing union under Section 9(c) within 30 days of the commencement of picketing.

Chapter 6 Regulation of Union Activities

Labor & Employment Law 58

13. [Jurisdictional picketing, Section 6.6.] The picket involved was not informational or “area

standards” picketing. The Plumbers Union has engaged in jurisdictional picketing

14. [Common situs picketing, Section 6.7.] The law governing common situs picketing controls in

this case. The court applied the Moore Dry Dock guidelines as follows:

(a) Drukker’s contract placed it and its equipment on the Red Lobster site to begin and

15. [Consumer or product picketing, Section 6.8.] It would appear that this boycott satisfies the

exception outlined in Tree Fruits [Section 6.8] by asking customers not to use a specifically

named product (Duro paper bags) and clearly not urging customers to cease shopping at

16. [Common Situs Picketing, Section 6.7.] A Board majority determined that common situs

picketing occurred because both the primary employer, WPS, and the neutral secondary

employers, Texaco and BN, occupy the premises.

Applying Moore Dry Dock standards, the Board found that by extending picketing

Chapter 6 Regulation of Union Activities

Labor & Employment Law 59

Extra Case Problem

Facts: After the Goodell law firm hired a contractor to renovate its offices in downtown

Baltimore, the contractor subcontracted the drywall work to Starkey Construction Co. The

Decision: Bannering as a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), Section 5.10. The General Counsel

believed that union bannering of a secondary employer violates Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). The Board

at the time of this decision had not ruled on the issue. Several district courts and the Ninth