Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

Injunction litigation 155One case of particular interest was Gottfried v. Sheet MetalWorkers Local 80 (Limbach Co.). 26 In that case, the Boardsought a 10(1) injunction to enjoin a union from disclaiming interestin representing the employees of Limbach, and encouragingits members not to work for Limbach, when the union engagedin that conduct in furtherance of a dispute it had with a Floridacorporation wholly owned by the same parent corporation thatowned Limbach. In the Board's view, because the Florida corporationwas a separate employer within the meaning of the Act,even though it was affiliated with Limbach through bonds ofcommon ownership, the union's pressure against Limbach had asecondary object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.The union's encouragement of employees not to perform servicesfor Limbach constituted inducement and encouragement of employeesto strike within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i). Further,the disclaimer of recognition constituted restraint and coercionwithin the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii) both because it effectivelyled to a refusal by Limbach's union employees to performservices for it, and because the consequence of causingLimbach to become a nonunion employer would effectively denyLimbach access to a significant sector of the Detroit constructionmarket. Accordingly, in the Board's view, the union's schemeamounted to an unlawful secondary boycott.27The district court, without conducting a hearing, denied therequest for temporary injunctive relief. In its view, the Board'srecent decision in John Deklewa & Son.s22 unconditionally privilegedthe union to renounce its 8(f) relationship with Limbach onexpiration of the parties' labor agreement without regard to theunion's motive for so doing. The Board's appeal from this decisionwas pending before the Sixth Circuit at the close of thefiscal year. 2 926 Civil No. 88 CB 72208 DT (E.D.Mich.)27 Two other district courts previously had issued 10(1) injunctions against other locals of the SheetMetal Workers based on this legal theory. Sharp v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 10, Civil No. 3-87-153(D.Minn. Apr. 7, 1987), and Zipp v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 91, Civil No. 87-4060 (C.D.I11. Apr. 8,1987).28 282 NLRB 1375 (1987), enfd. sub nom. Iron Workers Local 3 v. NLRB, 843 F.2d 770 (3d Cir.1988).29 No. 88-1757.