TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

140 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
footing with an employer having a permanent business site, the Board
majority held that the picketing union had not satisfied the Moore Dry
Dock requirement that the picketing clearly disclose the dispute to be
with the primary employer, the plant employer here 85
Illustrative of trucking disputes involving the common situs question
was the Rue case 86 Although the pickets in this case carried
signs identifying the employer involved in the primary dispute, as
required by Moore Dry Dock, a violation was nevertheless found since
the picketing union did not meet its obligation "under Moore Dry
Dock to take particular measures not to enmesh employees" of secondary
tenants of a trucking terminal in its primary dispute with another
tenant Instead, the picketing union threatened employees of
these secondary tenants with meathooks, physically obstructed their
trucks, and otherwise made it impossible for them to carry on their
employers' business at their home station, the trucking terminal, insofar
as such business pertained to the primary employer The Board
took occasion to point out as follows
Since Moore Dry Dock, the Boaid has been presented with a number of cases
in which labor organizations, although in seeming compliance with Moore Dry
Dock, for example as to the wording of their picket signs, have at the same
time inconsistently made direct appeals to employees of secondary common
situs tenants Such appeals have induced and encouraged these employees to
cease work, with an object of causing their employers to cease doing business
with primaiy employeis These cases have involved, for example, common
construction sites [footnote omitted] and ambulatory trucking sites [Footnote
omitted ] In such eases the Board has held that the direct appeals to
secondaly employees of the othei regular common situs tenants have in effect
negated the conditions required in Moore Di y Dock to justify the picketing,
and have therefore weeded the limits of permissible "primary" activity and
constituted violations of the secondary boycott provisions of the Act 67
d Compelling Agreement Prohibited by Section 8(e)
Under the amended subsection (A), unions are prohibited fiom
resorting to 8(b) (4) (i) and (n) conduct in order to force an employer
to include m a collective-bargaining agreement "hot cargo"
provisions of a type which are forbidden under section 8(e) On
three occasions during the past fiscal year," the Board had to deter-
See also Sheet Metal Workers, ate, Local 299 (S M Elmer d Sens), 131 NLRB
No 147, P/umbets Union of Nassau County (Bomat Plumbing LC Heating), 131 NLRB
No 151
fa Highway Truck Drivers if Helpers, Local 107, 1ST (Riga & Co), 130 NLRB 948
Br To like effect see also International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Local 71 (Over
nite Transportation Oo ), 130 NLRB 1007, Local 810, Steel, Metals, etc Fabricators if
Warehousemen, JET (Fein Can Gory), 331 NLRB No 10
89 Amalgamated Lithographers and Local 17 (The Employing Lithographers), 130 NLRB
983, Amalgamated Lithographers and Local 78 (Miami Post Go ), 130 NLRB 9138, Members
Rodgers and Jenkins dissenting in part, Highway Truck Drivers Helpers, Local 107
IBT (B A Gallagher if Sons), 131 NLRB No 117