1 - National Labor Relations Board

Enforcement Litigation 149
autonomy of the international union continued to be described
as including millwrights' work, but the local expressly disclaimed
any trade autonomy or jurisdiction over millwrights, and the new
contract, unlike prior contracts, did not mention a pay rate specifically
for millwrights. Subsequently, however, the carpenters'
local threatened a work stoppage if two millwrights hired by
the employer continued on the job without joining the carpenters'
local, and the employer discharged them notwithstanding
they were members of the millwrights' local. The First Circuit
sustained the Board's finding that the employer violated section
8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by discharging the millwrights,
and the union violated section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) by causing
their discharge. In agreement with the Board, it found that while
the international union claimed jurisdiction over millwrights, the
carpenters' local, although continuing to represent the millwrights,
in fact, expressly disclaimed jurisdiction over them. Since the
union-shop agreement, requiring membership in the carpenters'
local, applied only to employees in the bargaining unit, and the
parties intended to exclude millwrights from the unit, the court
agreed that the millwrights were not covered by the terms of
the union-security clause and could not be discharged for failing
to satisfy its requirements.
5. Prohibited Boycotts and Boycott Agreements
A number of cases decided by courts during the year involved
the question whether specific union conduct was secondary activity,
proscribed by section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act, or lawful
primary activity. In one such case," the District of Columbia Circuit
sustained the Board's finding that a union violated section
8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) by picketing at a common situs construction
site, notwithstanding the fact that the union picketing
complied with the criteria set forth in the Board's Moore Dry
Dock decision, 62 since the purpose of the picketing was to force
the general contractor to replace a nonunion subcontractor with
one having a union contract, rather than, as asserted, to protest
the nonunion subcontractor's failure to meet area standards. The
court pointed out that the line between lawful primary and prohibited
secondary activity is not always clear, and that the
Board, in examining activity with both primary and secondary
effects to determine whether the secondary effects were truly an
objective of the activity, needs both general guidelines and flexel
IBEW, Loc. 480 v. N.L.R.B., 413 F.2d 1085.
"2 Sailorse Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock). 92 NLRB 547 (1950).