TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

138 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
and another employer Where it is shown that the employer to
whom the union extended its primary action is an "ally" of the primary
employer, rather than a neutral, no violation will be found "
"The Board has held that where alleged primary and secondary employers,
although separate legal entities, are commonly owned or
controlled or are engaged m closely integrated operations, they may
be regarded as a single employer, or where the conduct of the alleged
neutral employer is inconsistent with his professed neutrality in the
dispute, such as performing 'farmed out' struck work [footnote
omitted], the alleged neutral may be regarded as an 'ally' "U
In a number of cases during fiscal 1961, the Board.had occasion to
consider whether an "ally" relationship protected a union's otherwise
proscribed secondary conduct But in each of these cases, no "ally"
relationship was found to exist. In one case, the Board disagreed
with a trial examiner's finding that a general contractor was an "ally"
of its subcontractor because it entered into an agreement with the
subcontractor which required the latter to hire only nonunion employees,
and thereby gave rise to the union's dispute with the subcontractor
a° The Board pointed out that the general contractor in
this case did not undertake to assist the subcontractor in doing the
"disputed" work, but actively cooperated with the union in reaching
a settlement of the dispute contrary to the subcontractor's wishes
In another case, the Board rejected an "ally" contention where there
was no evidence that the primary and secondary employers were commonly
owned or controlled, and the secondary was not performing
work which, but for the union's strike against the primary, the union
would have perfocrned—as the primary's contract with the secondary
employer to perform work previously done by the primary's employees
preceded the strike, and appeared to be the cause of the dispute, not
its consequence 81 And in a third case, the mere fact that the primary
employer had guaranteed payment of a bank loan for the secondary
78 See International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc if Local 179 (Alecander Wa, ehouse
Sales Oo ), 128 NLRB 916, 918-919, where the Board, in finding that a union could lawfully
picket two of an employer's three warehouses in support of its dispute at the third
warehou9P, ii maned by analogy to the "ally" doctrine Case discussed above, p 134
General Drivers, Chauffeurs, etc, Local 886 (Ada Transit Afsx), 130 NLRB 788, citing
United Stce loot kers of America (Tennessee Coal), 127 NLRB 823, 824-825 (1960), enforced
294 1' 2d 256 (C A DC) See also Twenty-fifth Annual Report (1900), pp 105-
i 07
Plumbers Union of Nassau County, Local 467 (Banat Plumbing cl Healing), 131 NLRB
No 151, footnote 12
81 Highway Truck Drivers d Helpers Local 107, INT (Rua CS 130 NLRB 943 See
also Local 810, Steel, Metals, etc, IB7' (Fein Can Corp ), 131 NLRB No 10, where the
Board adopted the trial examiner's finding that a trucking company performing services
for a struck employer was not in any way "allied" with the latter, either by reason of
alleged common ownership or control, or close integration of operations, or by reason of
alleged common affiliation with other companies doing the same line of work, or by reason
of allegedly performing "struck" work