TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

196 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
In s number of cases injunctions were sought to restrain picketing
to obtain or to enforce an agteement concerning on-the-site subcontracting
in the construction industry 51 In Sherwood Construction 82
and Ford, Bacon and Davis" the union picketed genei al contractors
m the building and construction industry for agreements which would
require the general contractors to subcontract only to employers who
agreed to abide by the terms of the master agreement Finding reasonable
cause to believe that picketing for such an object violated
both subsections (A) and (B) of section 8(b) (4), the courts in these
cases enjoined the picketing under both sections 54
In several other case, however, the district courts, while finding that
a strike to obtain or enforce a clause restricting subcontracting of
on-the-jobsite woik violated section 8(b) (4) (B), refused to find that
a strike or picketing to obtain such a clause violated section
8(b) (4) (A) In Colson & Stevens 55 the court, rejecting the aigument
that section 8(e) "merely sanctioned voluntary agreements into
a 'Hot Cargo' agreement in the construction industry, but did not
lift the ban on coercive measuies designed to force such a stipulation
from an employer," held that "Congress, when enacting [section
8(b) (4)1(A) intended to prosei [be only those agi eements which
were prohibited by subsection (e)" and that the latter subsection
"expressly excepts from the scope of its prohibitions those building
and construction contracts" of the foiegoing natui e Noting, however,
that the 1959 amendments "did not intend to change the i ule"
iegarding secondary boycotts, and that since picketing to obtain such
an agreement prior to the amendments violated the secondary boycott
section, it continued aftei the amendments to violate the section
Taking note of cases holding that a union cannot strike to enforce
observance of the terms of such a contract," the court further held
that "Since picketing to enforce the provisions of such an agreement
is prohibited by the Act, it naturally follows that picketing to obtain
'3 A proviso to sec 8(e) specifies "That nothing in this subsection (e) shall spply to
an agreement between .1. labor organization and an employer in the construction industry
relating to the contracting or subcontracting of N%ork to be done at the site of the
construction
Yr
52 Sperry Local 101, International Union of Operating Engineers (Sherwood Construction
Co ), 47 LRRM 2481 (DC Kans )
LeBus v Building d Construction Trades Council (Ford, Bacon d Da ins), 180 F Supp
109 (D C NV La )
54 Subsequently the Board's case was closed upon the union's compliance with the trial
examiner's intermediate report finding a 1,1olation of the act Ford, Bacon t Davis, Case
No 15—CC-121
55 Kennedy v Construction, Production ii Maintenance Laborers' Union, etc (Colson d
Stevens Construction Co , 48 LRRM 2791 (D C Ariz )
"Local 1970, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, etc v NLRB (Sand Door it Plywood
Co ), 357 U S 93 N L R I Bongo Building Tiadev Council (Davison Construction Co ),
278F 2d287 (C A 1)