TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

190 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
the courts, the act contemplated the disruption of an established employment
relationship and since the employment status had not been
established, a refusal to furnish workers could not violate the act At
the adoption of the 1959 amendments, it was indicated that this kind of
pressure was being prohibited by the inclusion of the new ban against
coercion and restraint of secondary employe's 27
This question arose in two cases in fiscal 1961 In the Martin Company
case,28 Martin subcontracted the installation of certain cable to an
employer who had a contract with the union requiring it to furnish
necessary workers on demand Because the cable had been fabricated
by Martin with employees represented by another labor organization,
the union, among other things, refused to furnish workers to the subcontractor
for the performance of its contract with Mai tin Without
discussing the impact of the aforesaid amendment, the court found
that the union's refusal to furnish workers, as well as its other conduct,
violated the amended act and expressly enjoined the union from continuing
to withhold requested workers from the subcontractor 22
In Harbor Commisszoner8 3° it was contended that there was no violation
when longshoremen refused to accept employment to unload a
ship Without discussing the new prohibition against restraint and
coercion of secondary employers, the court found that the longshoremen's
refusal to work was in the "course of their employment." In
leaching this conclusion and gianting the injunctive relief sought,
the district court noted that the "implication" of the union's contract
with the secondary employer "obligated" longshoremen to unload the
ship and that the latter "customarily" did so Relying on other cases,31
the court distinguished the Joliet Contractors' case, above, and found
"reasonable cause to believe that a sufficient employment ielationship
existed at the time when the longshoremen refused to discharge the
Pipnaki's cargo to bring the conduct of respondents under the ban of
Section 8(b) (4) (B) " An injunction was issued enjoining the refusal
to work
c Common Sims Picketing
In Middle South Broadcasting 32 the court found probable cause to
97 See Leg Hist of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, vol H.
'pp 1194(1) and 1581(1-2)
Bowe v Local 756, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (The Martin Co)
47 LRRM 2351 (DC S Fla )
29 Subsequently the Board found that the union's refusal to refer workers violated see
8(b) (4) (E) (B) of the act The Martin Company, 131 NLRB No 120
Santo., v International Longshoremen's Assn (Board of Harbor Commissioners), 188
F Supp 308
19. United Marine Division, Local 393, ILA (New York Shipping Assn ), 107 NLRB 686,
American Federation of Radio d Television Artists v Getreu (L B Wilson, Inc ), 258 F
2d698 (CA 6)
99 Phillsps v Local No 668. Radio d Television Engineers (Middle South Broadcasting
Co ), 192 F Supp 643 (D C E Tenn )