TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Enforcement Litigation 177
(b) Picketing at a common sans
Sevei al cases decided during the year involved the scope of the
picketing prohibitions contained in section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of
the 1947 act in common-situs situations, where the situs of the pi imary
dispute harbors employees of the primary employer and employees
of secondary employers In Maccitee,54 the Fifth Circuit approved
the Board's finding that the union violated section 8(b) (4) (A) of
the 1947 act by picketing at construction projects where both the
primary employer's employees and the employees of neutral employers
were working, on the ground, inter aka, that the primary employer
had a permanent place of business where all of its employees regularly
reported, and where the union could and did solicit their support
In another common-situs case," the Second Circuit agreed with the
Board that the union violated this provision by picketing near the
primary employer's trucks when they were making pickups or deliveries
at the premises of secondary employers However, the court
stated that the mere fact that the primary employer had a separate
place of business where the primary employer coin be picketed effectively
"shows only that the secondary picketing had an objective other
than persuading the primary employees, not that the picketing necessarily
had the particular objective which § 8(b) (4) (A) forbids"
The existence of this proscribed objective was shown by union conduct,
apart from the picketing, which the court said warranted the
infeience that secondary employers were faced with a strike threat
if they continued to do business with the primary employer
One common-situs case decided during the year 56 involved violations
of section 8(b) (4) (i) and (n) (B) of the act as amended in
1959 The Eighth Circuit agreed with the Board that the union
violated these provisions by picketing in front of a construction site
with an object of forcing the general contractor to cease doing business
with the only subcontractor who employed nonunion men on the
project, and forcing that subcontractor to recognize the union The
court noted that the tests set forth in Moore Dry Dock" for determining
the legality of picketing at a common situs are only "evidentiary
in nature," to be employed in the absence of more direct evidence of
a union's intent and purposes It then held that the Board's unfair
"NLRB v Dailas General Drivers, Local Union No 746, 281 F 2d 593, certiorari
denied 365 US 826
55 N L RD v Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
(6 Helpers of America (K C Refrigeration), 284 F 2d 887
w h7LRB v International Hod Carriers, Building c6 Common Laborers' Union of
America, Local No 1140 (Gilmore Construction Co ), 285 F 2d 397, certiorari denied 366
U S 903
57 Sailors' Union of the Pacific, (Moot e Dry Dock Co ), 92 NLRB 547, 549 See Sixteenth
Annual Report, pp 226-227 (1951)