TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices 135
constituted a permissible form of primary activity In this case, the
Board held that the union's secondary activity elsewhere did not
render unlawful the otherwise lawful primary picket-line conduct
since, unlike the primary activity, it sought cessation of business relations
at neutral premises.
(b) Consumer picketing
The legality of so-called consumer picketing under clause (i) of
section 8(b) (4), which proscribes inducement or encouragement of
employees to engage in a strike or refusal to perform services, was
considered by the Board during the fiscal year and then ieexammed
shortly after the close of the year
During the fiscal year, in Perfection Mattress, a Board majority
reaffirmed its position in a prior case " that picketing of a retail store
at entrances used in common by store employees and the consuming
public violated section 8(b) (4) (i) It was the opinion of this Board
majority that such picketing—carried on with signs•addressed to the
consuming public not to buy products made by the nonunion primary
employer—had the natural or probable result of inducing a strike
by store employees However, shortly after the close of the year,
another Board majority decided in the MznneapoUs House Furrashing
case 65 that similar consumer picketing did not violate clause (i)
of section 8(b) (4)," where the picketing union announced in advance
that there would be no strikes or suspension of deliveries or pickups
at stores, the picketing was carried on at the public entrances to two
ietail stores with signs appealing to customers to buy locally and
union-made furniture, and no work stoppages occurred at any time
Holding that such picketing is not per se "inducement or encouragement,"
the majority concluded that m this particular case the picketing
appeal was addressed to the consuming public alone and no inducement
of store employees to stop work was either intended or
likely to result in consequence of the picketing Thus, no violation
of clause (i) was found, and the Perfection Mattress doctrine was
overruled to the extent it was inconsistent with the instant decision
a United Wholesale d Warehouse Employees, Local 261 (Perfection Mattress if Spring
Co ), 129 NLRB 1014, Member Fanning dissenting on this point The majority opinion
was signed by then Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins
04 United Wholesale Warehouse Employees, Local 261 (Perfection Mattress Spring
Co) 125 NLRB 520 (1959)
a Upholsterers Frame d Bedding Workers (Minneapolis House Furnishing Co ), 132
NLRB No 2 Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown formed the majority
with Members Rodgers and Leedom dissenting on this point See also supplemental decision
in Perfection Mattress et Spring Co, 134 NLRB No 99, issued after close of fiscal
year
ae The Board unanimously adhered to the interpretation that such picketing does violate
clause (11) of this section See below, p 137