1 - National Labor Relations Board

Injunction Litigation 167
the validity of which similarily turned upon a common ownership
issue, a district court held that there was a reasonable
cause to believe that a union violated the Act by picketing the
premises of a newspaper owned by a corporation which also
owned the radio and television broadcasting stations with
which the union had a primary labor dispute. The court concluded
that the broadcasting stations, not the corporation, were
the primary employers, and while the stations and the newspaper
were related through common ownership, they were independent
in their operations and were not subject to such a
degree of common control and adherence to common policies
as to render the newspaper subject to picketing in furtherance
of the dispute.
In the Los Angeles Typographical case, 19 where the unions
picketed a number of retail stores with signs urging the public
not to buy merchandise advertised by the retail stores in a newspaper
with whom the unions had a primary labor dispute, the
court denied injunctive relief on the ground that there was not
reasonable cause to believe that an unfair labor practice had occured
since the legal theory of the case was premised upon unsettled
issues of law. The court did not view as controlling the
precedent of Honolulu Typographical Union 37, 2° where the court
of appeals held in substance that since the establishment picketed
advertised its entire business in the struck newspaper rather
than its separable products, the union's picketing constituted a
request for a total boycott with a prohibited cease-doing-business
object rather than the following of a struck product as permitted
by the Tree Fruits doctrine. 21 The district court observed
that the court of appeals in that case refrained from deciding
the question of whether the picketing would have been illegal
if it had been "limited to requesting a boycott of particular
advertised products," and that the Board in that case had not
discussed the question involved in the instant case. The court
noted that while it appeared that the Board and the court recognized
that a special problem arises where consumer picketing
is limited to those products advertised in a struck newspaper
by a neutral retailer, neither the Board nor the court found it
necessary to decide the matter in the Honolulu case. Therefore,
" K ennedy v. Los Angeles Typographical Union 174 (White Front Stores), 71 LRRM 2134
(D.0 Calif.).
20
Typographical Union 37, ITU (Hawaii Press Newspapers) v. N.L R B, 401 F.2d
952 (C.A.D.C., 1968).
"N.L.R.B. v Fruit & Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen, Loc. 760 (Tree Fruits Labor
Relations Committee), 377 U.S. 58.
384-517 0 - 78 - 12