TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Injunction Litigation 195
exert other pressure on an employer to compel him to enter into an
agreement in 'cation of section 8(e) In fiscal 1961, the district
courts were called upon in a number of cases to construe these
provisions
In Greater St Louts Automotive Trimmers ce Upholsterers Assn*
the union and certain automobile dealers had, plior to the 1959
amendments, entered into contracts which provided that whenever
a dealer found it "feasible to send work out preference will be
given to such shops or subcontractors having contracts with the
Umon " In the summer of 1960, the union demanded that the
automobile dealers comply with their contractual agreement to give
preference to union shops in respect to certain work being conti acted
out As a result, some of the dealers ceased contracting out work
to firms which did not have contracts with the union The court,
finding reasonable cause to believe that section 8(e) prohibited this
type of agreement, and that the union would continue to insist that it
be complied with, granted an injunction restraining the union from
seeking adherence to the agreement or any other similar agreement
violative of section 8(e)
In Drive-Thru 48 the union demanded that a milk processor, whose
drivers the union represented, cease selling milk for iesale to a
custom& at the processor's plant, and require such customer to purchase
milk on a basis of delivery at the customer's place of business
by the processoi's drivels To enforce its demand, the union induced
its members not to load the customer's trucks at the processor's dock
As a result, the processot ceased doing business with the customer
except under the conditions demanded by the union The court, finding
reasonable cause to believe that the processor had entered into
an "implied" agreement with the union and that the agreement vidlated
section 8(e), enjoined the union from enforcing the "implied"
agreement or from engaging in coercive conduct to obtain any other
cimilar agreement violative of section 8(e)
In Edna Coal" the court found reasonable cause to believe that
the union, by picketing a coal mine to compel it to agree to cease
using the services of a nonunion trucker, was employing proscribed
conduct under section 8(b) (4) (A) to compel the mine to enter into
an agreement prohibited by section 8(e) and enjoined the picketing
of the mine 50
• Cosentino v Automotive, Petroleum d Allied Induetries Employeee Union (Greater
St Louie Automotive Amin), 47 LRRM 2492 (DC E Mo ) Accord 134 NLRB Nos 138
and 139
" Car/son v Milk Wagon Drivers d Dairy Dinployeeie Union (Drivc-Thru Dairy, Inc ),
48 LRRM 2316 (D C E Ito)
• Waera v Distract 15, United Mine Wei Lem etc (Edna Goal Co ), 47 LRRM 2417
(DC Cob)
50 Subsequent to the close of the fiscal year, the Board dismissed the complaint herein
for insufficient evidence of union responsibility for the picketing Edna Coal Company,
132 NLRB No 42
616401-62-14