TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

134 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
(a) Primary picketing
In the McJunkin case," a majority of the Board relied on union's
"total pattern of conduct" to find a violation of section 8(b) (4) (A)
as to three incidents of inducement and encouragement at the primary
employer's place of business, which the trial examiner considered to
be protected primary activity More specifically, the Board majority
ruled that the three incidents, which induced refusals to make deliveries
or pickups at the primary employer's premises, were but a part
of the union's total effort to bring about a cessation of business
between the primary employer and other employers by means proscribed
by the act In making this finding, the majority pointed out
that at the outset of the primary dispute, the union—by letters to
other employers—had announced its intention to embargo the primary
employer's goods and to carry out that objective through its members,
that the picketing of the primary premises was earned on with an
"immediate, principal purpose" to induce outside employees to refuse
pickups or deliveries, and that the union engaged in one incident of
unlawful inducement at a secondary employer's premises The majority
concluded that where a union "sets out on a concerted effort to
keep neutral employers from doing business with the primary employer
by encouraging and inducing the employees of those neutral
employers, 'it would be manifestly unrealistic not to take into consideration
the total pattern of conduct' engaged in by the union when
passing upon particular Incidents of inducement" It noted further
that if "the totality of the union's effort is intended to accomplish
a proscribed objective by inducements of secondary employees, then
each particular inducement, being a component part of the total effort,
must be adjudged as unlawful."
Subsequently, the Board had occasion to pass on the legality of
picketing at two of an employer's three warehouses in support of a
dispute at the third warehouse 61 Drawing an analogy with its
"ally" doctrine," the Board held that the picketing of the two warehouses
and the union's oral appeals to secondary employees to observe
the picket line were lawful inasmuch as they were not directed solely
toward the secondary employees The picketing itself constituted
an act of inducement or encouragement of primary employees to
engage in a concerted refusal to perform services for their employer,
and the oral appeals—aimed as they were at inducing observance of
a picket line at premises occupied solely by the primary employer—
GU Chauffeurs, Teamsters t Helpers Local 175, IBT (MoJunkin Corp), 128 NLRB 522,
modified In 294 F 2d 281 (C A D C ), Members Fanning and Bean dissenting in part
This case was decided under sec 8(b) (4) (A) as it stood prior to the 1959 amendments
a International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc d Local 179 (Alexander Warehouse d
Bales Co ), 128 NLRB 918
a Bee discussion below, pp 137-139