07.02.2015 Views

TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!