TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

178 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
labor practice findings in this case were supported by "ample, direct,
and uncontradicted evidence" of the union's unlawful intent
The courts also decided two cases which mvolved a union's right
to picket in front of a gate to a plant of the primary employer which
is reserved for the use of neutral employers' employees Thus, m
Phelps Dodge," the Second Circuit agreed with the Board that the
union could not lawfully picket in front of a gate which the primary
employer had built expressly and solely for the use of employees of
independent contractors who weie engaged 111 construction work
on the piemises The court stated that to render such picketing
unlawful "there must be a separate gate, marked and set apart from
other gates, the work done by the men who use the gate must be
unrelated to the normal operations of the employer, and the work must
be of a kind that would not, if done when the plant were engaged
in its regular operations, necessitate curtailing those operations"
According to the court, the 1959 amendments did not legalize the
picketing in question
Similarly, in Virginia-Carolina Chernical,5° the District of Columbia
Circuit enforced a Board order based on a finding that the union
violated section 8(b) (4) (A) by picketing in front of a plant gate
which the primary employer had expressly reserved for the use of employees
of independent contractors who were performing engineering
work preliminary to a plant expansion, and were installing a fume
removal and scrubber system on plant premises
In Virginia-Carolina, the court relied on its own previous decision
in the General Electric case 80 After the issuance of the Supreme
Court's opinion in General Electrw,a the court, in another case,82 set
aside the Board's finding that a union violated section 8(b) (4) (A) of
the 1947 act by picketing in front of a primary employer's only entrance,
used by both the primary employees and the employees of
a contractor performing construction work for the employer As the
contractor's employees could be identified by the pickets because of
their uniforms and working hours which differed from those of the
primary employees, the Board took the position that there should be
no difference in effect between (1) separate gates and (2) distinct uniforms
and different working hours The court, however, i uled that
58 United SteelworLere of America, APL—CIO v NLRB, 289 F 2d 591
62 Local 80, International Chemical Workers Union, AFL—CIO v NLRB, 47 LR11111
2493, certiorari denied 366 U S 949, enforcing per curiam 126 NLRB 905 The Board's
opinion is discussed in the Twenty-fifth Annual Report, p 109 (1960)
au Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio it Machine WorLera v NLRB,
278 P 26 282, discussed in the Twenty-fifth Annual Report, p 140 (1960)
02 366 U S 667 See p 157, above
62 Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Advert, of Americo v N T. R R ((7onzalez)
293 P 26881 (C A DC)