TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

142 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
spondent union—by picketing, appeals, and directions—violated this
section 92
6. "Hot Cargo" Agreements
Prior to the 1959 amendments, an employer could lawfully agree
with a union not to do business with "any other person," although a
union could not lawfully attempt to enforce such an agreement by
strike action 93 New section 8(e) 84 now makes it an unfair labor
practice for an employer and a union merely to enter into such an
agreement, commonly referred to as a "hot cargo" agreement
Exempted by its provisos, however, are agieements between unions
and employers in the "construction industry relating to the contracting
or subcontracting of work to be done at the site of the construction.
alteration, painting, or repair of a building, structure, or other work,"
and certain agreements in the "apparel and clothing industry"
During the past fiscal year, the Board issued its first interpretations
of the new "hot cargo" ban in two cases 93 involving different locals
of the Lithographers Union 9° Each of the respective locals involved
had proposed—and engaged in strike and other conduct to secure—a
set of contractual clauses which covered the same subject matter, but
were not identical in language The Board found some of these clauses
lawful, but others unlawful
In these cases, both unions had pi oposed a "ti ade shop" clause °'
containing what the Board construed to be an "implied" agreement
not to handle nonunion products, while another clause implemented
the "trade shop" provision (as .well as another provision found to be
lawful) by stating that the employer would not discharge or discipline
an employee for refusing to handle work from a nonunion shop
ti Amalgamated Unson, Local 5, UAW (Dynamic Mfg Corp ), 131 NLRB No 41
" See Local 1978 Carpenter. v NLRB (Sand Door di Plywood Co ), 357 II S 93 (1958),
Twenty-third Annual Report, pp 107-110 There the Supreme Court upheld the Board's
Position as stated in the Sand Door case, 113 NLRB 1210 (1955)
"Sec 8(e) I provides "It shall be an unfair labor practice for any labor organization
and any employer to enter into any contract or agreement, express or im plied whereby
such employer ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain from handling, using, selling,
transporting or otherwise dealing in any of the products of any other emplo yer, or to
cease doing business with any other person, and any contract or agreement entered into
heretofore or hereafter Containing such an agreement shall be to such extent unenforeible
and sold
"Amalgamated Lsthographere and Local 17 (The Employing L gthoglaphere), 130 NLRB
985, Amalgamated Lithographers and Local 78 (Aftaint Post Co ), 180 NLRB 968, Membets
Rodgers and Jenkins dissenting in part
"The eases in which the Board ruled that contracts containing provisions pioscribed
by sec 8(e) are not a bar to a representation election alt. discussed above, pp 47-48
" The clause recites that the contract has been negotiated "on the assum ption that all
lithographic production work will be done under approved union wages and conditions"
It further states that if the employer requests any employee to handle lithographic work
made in any shop not under contract with a local of the International and authorized to
use the union label, the union may reopen the contract in whole or in part and terminate
It In the event of failure to agree Other sections of this clause deal with affixing of the
union label to work done in union shops