TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Injunction Litigation 207
employer does not employ members of or have a conti act with the
union as long as the picketing does not cause a secondary stoppage
During fiscal 1960, the district couit in Stork Club 99 found that
when the unions, after a section 8(b) (7) (C) chat ge had been filed,
wrote the employer with& awing their requests for recognition and
changed their picket signs to asset t that the employer "Does Not Have
a Contract With" the unions and the employees "Do Not Enjoy Union
Wages, Hours and Woi king Conditions," they nonetheless continued
to have a recognition objective and that the picketing, therefore, violated
section 8(b) (7) (C) On appeal dui mg fiscal 1961, the Second
Circuit ieversed the district court's conclusion that the disclaimei
letter was insufficient to clear the way foi proviso picketing but, because
the picketing with the changed signs continued to stop deliveries,
remanded the case to the district court for the enti y of an order e-
straining the picketing only insofar as it affected deliveries 99 On a
subsequent appeal, the court modified the district court's order on iemand
so as to restrict the prohibition against picketikg to those houts
'hen it had been found that deliveries normally wet e made, but retamed
jurisdiction in the district court to modify the order "from time
to time as may be required in the interests of justice "1
In Charlie's Car Wash 2 the court rejected the contention that the
picketing was merely "informational" and found it was for "an object,
not merely an ultimate object either to foice or iequire acceptance
by Charlie's of the union as a bargaining representatii e, or to
force or require organization of the employees," in view of prior
demands for a contract, evidence of current oiganizational activities,
and the "attempt made to discourage pickups and deliveries by methods
beyond reliance on sympathy with the union" The picketing
was therefore enjoined
In several other cases, 3 whei e the union's proviso picketing i e-
suited in the stoppages of pickups and deliveries by suppliers and
trucking companies at the employer's premises, the corn ts issued
injunctions finding that the picketing, by reason of this, was not
exempt from the prohibition of section 8(b) (7) (C) In Barker
Brothers,4 however, where the union had publicized that the picketing
98 31cLeo4 v Chefs, Cooka, Pastry Cooks d Assistants (Stork Club Restaurant), 181 P
Supp 742 (DC SNY)
66 McLeod v Chefs, Cooks, Pastry Cooks d Assistants, 280 P 2d 760 (C A 2)
McLeod Chef,. Cooks, Pastry Cooks 15 Assistants, 286 F 2d 727 (C A 2) See also
130 NLRB 343 and 133 NLRB No 122
Cosentino v Local 618, Automotive, Petroleum d Allied Induatties Employees Union
(Charlie's Oar Wash), 47 LRRM 2309 (DC E Mo )
See Sperry v Local 101, International Union of Opetating Engineers (Sherwood Con
atruction 00), 47 LRRAI 2481 (DC Kano) , if v Local 456, Teamsters cE Chauffeurs
Union, IBT (Goldleaf Sales Corp ), 47 LR1iN1 2692 Subsequently the Board proceeding
was terminated by entry of an order by the Board upon the union's failure to file exception
to the trial examiner's intermediate report finding a violation of the net Golelleaf Bales
Corp, Case No 2—CF-61
'Kennedy v Retail Clerks Union Local 824 (Barker Bros Corp and Gold's, lac), 48
LKRIkt 2158 (DC S Calif )