1 - National Labor Relations Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
168 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board as the controlling issues of law had not yet been resolved in their application to a situation as that presented, the court concluded that it would not be just and proper to issue an injunction.
Page 1 and 2:
TMR.TY-FOURM ANNUAL REPORT
Page 4:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Memb
Page 8 and 9:
7 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. Oper
Page 10:
Table of Contents ix Page 1. Preser
Page 13 and 14:
2 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of th
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
1 8 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
Page 21 and 22:
10 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of t
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
PERCENT PERCENT 100 100 1111111 90
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
II Jurisdiction of the Board The Bo
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
V Representation Cases The Act requ
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
VI Unfair Labor Practices The Board
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
100 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128: 116 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
Page 129 and 130: VIII Enforcement Litigation Board o
Page 171 and 172: IX Injunction Litigation Section 10
Page 177: 166 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of
Page 211 and 212: Table 3A.—Formal Actions Taken in
Page 213 and 214: Table 4.—Remedial Actions Taken i
Page 215 and 216: Table 5.—Industrial Distribution
Page 217 and 218: Table 6.—Geographic Distribution
Page 219 and 220: Table 7.-Analysis of Methods of Dis
Page 221 and 222: it! All C cases CA cases CB cases C
Page 223 and 224: Stage of disposition ' Table 8.-Dis
Page 225 and 226: Table 10.-Analysis of Methods of Di
Page 227 and 228: Table 11A.—Analysis of Elections
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Table 13.-Final Outcome of Represen
Page 233 and 234:
Participating unions AFL-CIO v. AFL
Page 235 and 236:
Table 14.-Valid Votes Cast in Repre
Page 237 and 238:
Participating unions AFL-CIO v. AFL
Page 239 and 240:
Table 15.-Geographic Distribution o
Page 241 and 242:
144 0 Table 16.-Industrial Distribu
Page 243 and 244:
1.) LA, iv Table 17.-Size of Units
Page 245 and 246:
Table 18.-Distribution of Unfair La
Page 247 and 248:
Table 19.-Litigation for Enforcemen
Page 249 and 250:
Table 20.—Injunction Litigation U
Page 251:
show all

1 - National Labor Relations Board

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?