TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Injunction Litigation 193
the secondary employer's employees to cross the picket line only if
the secondary employer agreed to cease having its newspaper printed
by the primary employer The district court found reasonable cause
to believe that the union's conduct violated the secondary boycott provisions
of the act and issued an injunction predicated on this and other
findings of unlawful secondary activities On appeal it was contended
that the affairs of the primary and secondary employers were "so
mtertwmed” that the secondary employer was not a "neutral" to the
dispute with the primary employer, but on the contrary the two were
"co-employers," or at least "allies," and the secondary employer therefore
was deprived of the protection of the secondary boycott section
The First Circuit 43 rejected the contention and sustained the injunction,
finding from the "undisputed facts" that the two employers were
"separate and distinct corporations without any common ownership
or control," that their "only relationship was under the contract" providing
for the primary employer's printing of the secondary employer's
newspaper, that the secondary employer "was not performing
'struck work'" for the primary employer, and tltat their businesses
were not "so integrated or intertwined operationally" as to deprive
the secondary employer of the act's protection The court also rejected
the argument that "the fact that [the secondary] employees participated
in the work of bundling [the secondary employer's] papers
after they were delivered by [the primary employees] to [the primary
employer's] mailing room" altered the situation, noting that
the "plain intent" of section 8(b) (4) (B) "is to prohibit conduct aimed
at terminating the very sort of business relationship mhich existed
here"
In another case," the union had a dispute with a manufacturing
company The manufacturer leased one entire warehouse and part
of another, both located off the manufacturer's premises, where the
manufacturer stored supplies and finished products The warehouses
were operated by other companies which, pursuant to contract, performed
required services for the manufacturer at the warehouses
The union, contending that the warehouse operators mare "allies" of
the manufacturer, extended its picketing to the warehouses The court,
however, found that The warehouses were in the "actual control"
of the warehouse operators who had "no interest" in the manufacturer,
the warehouse employees were "lured, fired, paid and controlled in the
details of their performance" by the warehouse operators, "no employees
of [the manufacturer were] on the premises of either ware-
4' Local 901, International Brotherhood of Teamstere v Compton (Editorial El rinparcial,
/o), 291 F 2d 793 (C A 1)
44 Vincent v Local 516, United Plant Goat d Workere (Hewitt Robins, Inc ), 47 LRRM
2695 (DC WNY)