1 - National Labor Relations Board

152 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
did in that case, and disrupting a neutral employer's entire
business, agreed with the Board that the picketing here clearly
had the latter objective. The court recognized that such a holding
would give broader immunity to those secondary sellers who
sold struck primary products which were so merged into the
seller's total business as to be inseparable therefrom, but concluded
the distinction was justified since based on the tradition
and economic realities of union economic pressure. It noted
' that Congress, in enacting the 1959 amendments to section 8(b)
(4) (B), had concluded that the union's desire to maximize the
pressure on the primary employer by cutting off its markets had
to be subordinated to the neutral employer's desire to avoid a
boycott of his entire business. Therefore, under the circumstances
of the instant case, the Tree Fruits doctrine was held to be
inapplicable.
The other case 69 also involved the picketing of restaurants by
a union which had a labor dispute with an employer engaged in
the baking, sale, and distribution of bread and other bakery
products. The restaurants used bread supplies by the struck employer
to make sandwiches and toast, and also in cooking, but
did not sell it separately on a retail basis. The Sixth Circuit
affirmed the Board's holding that, under these circumstances,
the union's picketing was unlawful. It agreed that the bread
was so integrated into the meals served by the restaurants that
customers could not readily recognize a particular brand of bread.
Thus, the customers would have to stop ordering sandwiches,
baked goods, or any meal served or made with bread or bakery
products. In effect, therefore, the union's appeal to customers
not to purchase the primary employer's bread amounted to a
request that the customers stop all trade with the restaurants.
6. Jurisdictional Disputes
Several court decisions were handed down during the report
year in which the courts reviewed Board findings that unions
had violated section 8(b) (4) (D) by picketing and threats with
an object of requiring an employer to assign particular work to
employees within its jurisdiction rather than to another group
of employees. In one such case decided during the report year, 7° the
Third Circuit held that the Board had properly found that a
union, by inducing several work stoppages with an object of
forcing a subcontractor on a construction project to assign cer-
" American Bread Co. v. N.L.R.B., 911 F.2d 147 (C.A. 6).
70
N.L.R.B. v. Loc. 825, Operatmg Engineers [Burns and Roe], 910 F.2d 5. For a discussion
of the sec. 8(b) (9) (B) as pects of this case see supra, p. 150.