TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Injunction Litigation 199
and that the contention it was entitled under its contract and the grievance
procedure to insist upon the work was a question for determination
by the Board in its proceedings rather than by the couit in the
section 10(1) proceeding
In Marshall Montenwnce," the Second Circuit affirmed the injunction
of the district comt against picketing and handbilling to force an
employer to assign certain welding work to members of the union
rather than to the employees own employees who were not members
of any union In doing so, the court of appeals expressly held that
section 8(b) (4) (D) is not limited to disputes between two unions over
the assignment of work but rather is broad enough to cover coercive
activity by a union to obtain an assignment of work to its members, to
the exclusion of other workers, regardless of whether the employees
sought to be replaced are union membeis or nonunion employees
In V enneri, above, the respondent union, among other tlungs, refused
to refer or furnish orkers to a subcontractor, pursuant to its agreement,
to force the general contractor to contract out certain work to a
subcontractor that employed membeis of respondent rather than to
perform the work with members of another union to whom it had been
assigned The court, finding reasonable cause to beheve that both
the conduct and the object violated section 8(b) (4) (D), issued an
injunction enjoining, inter alia, the refusal to refer workers
Similarly, in Minim Power, above, an injunction was issued when
a utility company using its own employees to lay pipes for a gasline
was picketed by a union desiring the work for its own members The
union sought the assignment of the work through a demand that it be
subconti acted, iather than through a demand that the utility company
assign the IN ork direct to its members
In Prefabricated Concrete, above, the lespondent union demanded
that the work of cutting, bending, and insetting metal bars used in
making prestressed concrete products be assigned to its members
Subsequently, another union was certified by the Board as the lepresentative
of the employees doing this work The respondent union
thereafter picketed the employer's plant with signs addressed to the
public stating that the company's employees were engaged in "work
normally performed" by the respondent union at wages below prevailing
rates The picketing stopped deliveries to the plant An iniuncton
was granted, the court finding from the foregoing reasonable
cause to believe that the objective of the union's picketing after the
election was to force the assignment of the work in question to respondent
union's members The court enjoined all picketing for the object
.to Vincent v Steanfitters Local Union 395 etc (Marshall Maintenance), 288 F 2d 276
(CA 2)