TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Injunction Litigation 189
concluding that Congress intended that the same Intel pietation be
given the words "coeice oi restrain" in section 8(b) (4) as in other
sections of the act,23 held that these woids wete "indicative of stionget
conduct or activities than 'induce' oi %neon/ age'" or "influence and
persuasion" and refused to find that the handbilling coerced or
restrained the retail stores within the meaning of the section On
the other hand, the court, ielying on the Pig gly Wiggly and Middle
South Broadcasting court decisions, above, found that the handbillmg
was not protected by the publicity proviso and held that it violated
the secondary boycott section because it had "an effect of inducing"
secondary employees "to refuse to perform services at the secondary
site, even though no actual refusal by secondary employees in fact
occurred" The court, therefore, enjoined the handbillmg
In another case the conclusion was also reached that handbillmg
which did not cause an actual work stoppage nonetheless constituted
prohibited inducement and encouragement of such, but for another
reason In that case," the district court had enjoined, inter alza, the
distribution of handbills to employees at a brewery which advertised
in the newspaper published by the company with which the union had
its dispute On appeal, the union contended that the handbills were
privileged publication of its strike and not inducement of a secondary
work stoppage The First Circuit," however, found "ample evidence"
in the statement in the handbill directed at the employees of the brewery
"We are asking you to insist with Corona [the biewery] so that it
doesn't advertise in El Imparcsal [the newspaper]," which it characterized
as at best "only thinly veiled encouragement of strike
action by Corona's employees," to support the injunction against the
handbillmg
b Refusal To Refer Workers
Under the terms of the ban on secondary boycotts contained in the
act prior to its amendment in 1959 it had been held by the Board and
accepted by the courts 2° that a refusal to furnish workers to a secondary
employer to compel the latter to cease using the products of or
doing business with another person was not prohibited This conclusion
was predicated on the language in the act which prohibited
only the inducement of "employees" to engage in a "concerted refusal
in the course of their employment" In the view of the Board and
23Referring to sec 8(a) (1) and 8(b),(1) (A) See NLRB v Drsters, Chauffeurs, and
Helper., Local 689 (Carts. Brothers), 362 II S 274
24
v Local 901, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Edstortal El imparetal,
lac), Oct 10. 1960 (No 249-60, DC PR)
Local 901, Intenattonal Brotherhood of Teamsters v Compton (Edttorial El Imparesai,
lac). 291 11. 2d 793 (C A 1)
20 See Johet Contractors' Assn, 90 NLRB 542, OM Joliet Connectors' A8811 v NLRB,
202F 2d006 (CA 7)