TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

192 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
work The court, under these en cumstanc,es, concluded that the
picketing at the new clubhouse was secondary and enjoined it 39
d. Primary Picketing Proviso
In the 1959 amendments, Congress mcorpoi ated a proviso to the
secondary boycott pi °visions stating that "nothing contained in this
clause (B) shall be constmed to make unlawful, where not otherwise
unlawful, any primary strike or primary picketing" In Baltimore
Contractors" the union contended that this proviso permitted it to
picket a general conti actor at a construction site to compel it to tenninate
a subcontract with a nonunion employer and abide by its agreement
to "subcontract work only to firms hiring union labor" Finding
that such picketing continued to be unlawful under the act (see below
for discussion of cases involving contracts of this nature in the construction
industry), the court, citing the House Conference Report
on the 1959 amendments,41 held that the pi oviso did not "change anything"
in respect to the "ban on secondary boycotts" As the Supreme
Court held in Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio ce
Machine Workers v NLRB (General Electric (Jo), 386 U S 667,
681, the proviso merely—
was directed against the feta that the removal of "concerted" from the
statute might be interpreted so that "the picketing at the factory violates section
8(b) (4) (A) because the pickets induce the truck driver employed by the
trucker not to perform their usual services where an object is to compel the
trucking firm not to do business with the manufacturer during the strike"
e. "Ally" Defense
In several cases it was unsuccessfully aigued that a secondaly employer
was an ally of the primary employer In El Iimparcial" the
union was engaged in a labor dispute with a newspaper publishing
company and had continuously picketed the primaiy employer's plant
Another newspaper company, occupying leased space at the primary
employer's pi emises, had a contract with the pumary employer
whereby the lattei printed its newspapei The union agieed to permit
se Later the Supreme Couit issued its decision in Local 761, International Union of
Electrical, Radio cE Machine Workers v NLRB (General Electric Cc), 366 US 667,
affirming the Board's conclusion that picketing of a manufacturing plant gate set apart
for the exclusive use of independent contractors during a dispute with the manufacturer
violated the secondary boycott provisions of the act
io LeBue v International Union of Operating Engincei .9, etc (Baltsmot e Contract°, 8,
Inc ), 188 P SuPP 392 (D CE La) Subsequently the union consented to a Board order
permanently enjoining its conduct Baltimore Contractors, Inc, Case No 15—CC-124
"HR No 1147, 86th Cong. 1st Seas, p 38, Leg Hist of the Labor Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, vol L p 942
42 Compton v Local 901, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc (Editorial El
/mparcsal, Ino ), October 10, 1960 (No 249-60, DC PR)