TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Injunction Litigation 191
believe that a union engaged in conduct proscribed by the secondary
boycott provisions when it picketed in front of neutral retail estabhshments
because a mobile unit of a struck radio station was parked
in front of the establishments The court, in issuing the injunction,
pointed out that the "mobile unit would not be a substitute for the
studio and office headquarters of the station" and that by picketing
the latter, which were located in the center of town, the union "well
informed people of the area of [its] claim " In another case 34 an
injunction was also issued where the union picketed at a consti uction
site but did not picket at the primary employei's regular place of
business 7 blocks away where its employees checked in and out each
day In Lance Roofing ,35 however, an injunction against picketing
at a construction site was denied when it was established that the only
other place of business of the primary employer in the area was a
building "used only as a meeting place" foi the nine employees of the
primary employer working at the construction site but for no other,
business activities of the primary employer The court, in denying
the injunction, stated that "To hold otherwise on these facts is merely
to encourage employers to rent 'decoy' offices located away from operations
which have resulted m labor disputes" In another case, Cleveland
Construction, the court first denied injunctive relief against
common situs picketing because the primary employer's premises,
where his employees reported before going to work at the construction
site, weie located in a town other than that in which the construction
site was situated although within the geographical jurisdiction of the
union,38 but granted relief against the constiuction site picketing
when the primal y employer opened a temporary office in the same
town as the construction site and required his NN orkers to report daily
to the new location 37
In the Leonard Shaffer case,38 the union had a dispute with a dining
club which was having a new clubhouse built for it by independent
contractors During the construction work, the club continued to
operate at its old location, which the union was picketing, and none
of its employees worked at the new site Shortly before completion,
the union picketed the new clubhouse and shut down construction
33 Subsequent to the close of the fiscal year the Board decision issued finding no violation
in this picketing See Middle South Broadcasting Co, 133 NLRB No 165
• Schauffie, v Local 670, United Association of Journeymen, etc (Allentown Supply
Corp ). 43 LRRM 2094 (DC E Pa)
33 Schouifier v Local SO, United Slate, Tile Composition Roofers, etc (Lance Roofing
Co ), 191 F Sum) 237 (D C Del )
• LeBus into itationai Brothel hood of Elect; teal Wolkeis, Local 861 (Cleveland Construction
Co ), 192 F Supp 485 (DC La )
LoBus v International Brotherhood of Elect, wal Workers, Local 861 (Elco Electric,
/c), May 4, 1961 (No 8266, DC La)
39 Schauifier v Hotel, Motel if Club Employees Union (Leonard Shaffer Co, Inc ), 47
LRRM 2947 (D C E Pa )