TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board
TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board
TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
130 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the <strong>National</strong> <strong>Labor</strong> <strong>Relations</strong> <strong>Board</strong><br />
gesture to notify its State agency which does not do, nor have the<br />
funds to carry out, any conciliation or mediation work 48<br />
5. Prohibited Strikes and Boycotts<br />
The act's prohibitions against strikes and boycotts are contained<br />
in section 8(b) (4) Clause (i) of this section forbids unions to strike<br />
or to induce or encourage strikes or work stoppages by any individual<br />
employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting<br />
commerce, while clause (n) makes it unlawful for a union to<br />
threaten, coerce, or restrain any such person, in either case for any of<br />
the purposes prosciibed in subsection (A), (B), (C), or (D)<br />
Dui ing the past fiscal year, the <strong>Board</strong> construed for the first time<br />
the statutory term "person engaged in commerce or in an industry<br />
affecting commerce" in the Kinzer case 41 The <strong>Board</strong> stated here<br />
that in deciding secondary boycott cases, it would construe this statutory<br />
phrase broadly "in order to fulfill the manifest congressional<br />
purpose to give the widest coverage to secondary boycott provisions"<br />
Specifically, in this case, which involved a dispute in the building<br />
and construction industry and a primary employer whose business<br />
did affect commerce, the <strong>Board</strong> reversed a trial examiner who had<br />
dismissed a complaint because the evidence failed to show that the<br />
particular secondary employers involved were themselves engaged<br />
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce According to the<br />
<strong>Board</strong>, the trial examiner's rationale would plainly thwart the congressional<br />
intent in amending section 8(b) (4) to close various loopholes<br />
in the Taft-Hartley ban on secondary boycotts The <strong>Board</strong> took<br />
"administrative no4ce" of the fact that the building and construction<br />
industry causes the flow of large quantities of goods across State<br />
lines, and therefore found that it is an "industry affecting commerce,"<br />
and that the particular secondary employers involved were engaged<br />
in such an industry It was also noted that these secondary employers<br />
were engaged in an "activity," i e, a construction job, m which a<br />
labor dispute would burden or obstruct or tend to burden commerce<br />
within the meaning of section 8(b) (4) as further defined by section<br />
501 (1) of the <strong>Labor</strong> Management <strong>Relations</strong> Act because the primary<br />
employer was engaged in commerce<br />
During the year, the <strong>Board</strong> also had occasion to rule that a hospital<br />
is a "person" entitled to the protection of section 8(b) (4), even though<br />
as an "employer" it is exempt from the act as a nonprofit institution 48<br />
• Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen d Enginemen (Phelps Dodge Corp ), 130 NLRB<br />
1147<br />
• Sheet Metal Workers, Local 290 (5 If Kutner d Sons), 131 NLRB No 147<br />
46 Local 3, IBEW (Picker X-Ray Corp ), 128 NLRB 560, decided under the provisions<br />
of sec 8(b) (4) (A) before the 1959 amendments