TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

144 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
merely provided that the employer will not render assistance to any
struck lithographic employer and accordingly will not request any
employee to handle any of such employer's work, a unanimous Board
held that the clause went beyond the "ally" doctrine since it precluded
the employer from doing work customarily performed by
the contracting employer for the struck employer, and was therefore
unlawful.
The "chain shop" clauses proposed by the respective unions also
differed. The one involved in Local 78 in essence recognized the right
of employees to strike if employees in another lithographic plant
under common control and ownership went on strike or were locked
out. This clause was deemed merely to embody the union's statutory
right to extend primary strike action to another establishment which
would be considered part of a "single employer" within the meaning
of the act, and hence legal. But Local 17's proposed clause not only
permitted a sympathy strike in plants of the employer other than
the one struck, but also permitted a strike in the plant of the principal
company in the case of a strike at a subsidiary, or vice versa, even
though the principal and the subsidiary did not constitute a "single
employer." For this reason, the Board considered the effect of this
clause to be exactly like that of the "struck work" clause, at least as
far as separate employers are concerned, and hence illegal.
Clauses giving the union the "right to terminate" the contract were
also involved in the two cases. Local 78 wanted this right if the
employer requested an employee to handle struck work, and since the
Board majority had found this union's "struck work" clause to be
lawful, it upheld the validity of the termination clause since it
was intended merely to give the union a remedy for the breach of a
lawful clause. But Local 17 proposed a termination clause which
the Board interpreted as a sanction intended to insure that the employer
would not handle certain "hot goods" and, since it was "a
component part of the implied agreement to achieve an illegal objective,"
it was found equally unlawful.
Shortly after these two decisions were issued, the Board held 99 that
a disputed contract provision specifying that trucks arriving in a
certain area from over-the-road must be brought to the employer's
terminal before making any local deliveries was unlawful, when considered
in conjunction with other contract articles which defined local
area operations as those performed within a 40-mile radius of a
certain point in the area, and limited the performance of such operations
to employees represented by the union. According to the Board,
the illegality of the disputed provision stemmed from the fact that
el Highway Truck Drivers c6 Helpers, Local .107 (E. A. Gallagher ci Sous), 181 NLRB
No. 117.