TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

202 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
c. Effect of Alleged Unfair Labor Practice by Employer
In Ch,arlze's Car Wash, 8° the respondent union argued that mjunctwe
relief should not be granted because the employer had committed
an unfair labor practice under section 8(a) (1) by threatening to lay
off an employee Noting that the only restriction m section 10(1)
against application for an injunction in a section 8(b) (7) situation is
the filing of a meritorious charge alleging that the employer had
dominated 0" supported a labor organization in violation of section
8(a) (2) of the act, the court 'ejected the assei Lon, stating, "One of
the major purposes of the section alien mg injunctive relief, protection
of the public interest requiring unobst" uctecl flow of interstate
commerce, would be nullified by an interpretation which would allow
as a defense to injunction any charge against the employer, particularly
an unified charge, which comes within the Board's jurisdiction"
d Picketing Where Another Union Is the Contractual Representative
In fiscal 1961, only one case reached the district courts under the
ban of section 8(b) (7) (A) against organization or recognition picketing
where another union, which had been lawfully recognized, had a
contract with the employer that barred an election In that case,
Associated General Contractor8,81 the employer association, on behalf
of its employer-members, had recognized a district council of the
laborers' union for many years Collective-bargaining contracts in
effect between the employers and the laborers' union covered all employees
performing laborers' work, mcluding "tunnel construction
employees" Without challenging the validity of the recognition of
the laborers' =ion 'or the existence of the contract with that union
which covered the employees involved and barred the holding of an
election, the respondent union threatened to, and did, picket the employers'
projects to secure recognition as the representative of the
employers' tunnel workers The court, entering prelimmary findings
that there was I eason able cause to believe that respondent union's
picketing violated section 8(b) (7) (A), issued a temporary restraining
order enjoining the picketing Subsequently, the temporary restraining
ordel was continued upon consent of respondent union
e Picketing Within 12 Months of Election
Subpai agraph (B) of section 8(b) (7) bans lecognition or organization
picketing within 12 months following a validly conducted
80 Cosentino v Local 618., Automotive, Petroleum ct Alliea Industries Employees Union
(Claarticea Oar Wash), 47 LRRM 2309 (DC E Mo )
al Hoffman v Tunnel d Rock Worker a (Aasoesated Gencral Cont, actors), May 23, 1961
(No 8299, DC N Calif)