NEW YORK MAILERS UNION NO. 6, INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit1963-02-14No. No. 16951

316 F.2d 371

Summary · law.co

Holding. The Board's order is enforced, as modified, to correspond to the violations actually found to have been committed against the three newspapers.

The New York Mailers Union struck the Neo-Gravure Printing Company plant in New Jersey and then instructed its members not to handle Sunday supplements printed by Neo-Gravure that were distributed by three New York City newspapers. The National Labor Relations Board found that the Union violated federal labor law by inducing employees of the newspapers to refuse to handle Neo-Gravure materials in order to pressure those newspapers to stop doing business with Neo-Gravure or to force Neo-Gravure to recognize the Union as a bargaining representative.

The Union argued that the labor statute implicitly permitted refusals to handle struck work. The court rejected this argument, explaining that the legislative history at most suggested a limited exception for work that had been farmed out to a second employer—a situation that would extend the labor dispute to that secondary employer. Here, the Neo-Gravure plant remained the only primary site of the dispute, and the three newspapers were neutral secondary employers. The Union's conduct violated the statute because it targeted secondary employers rather than confining the dispute to its primary source.

The court modified the Board's remedial order to limit it to violations actually found against the three newspapers, rather than a broader prohibition against violations directed at any employer in commerce.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the National Labor Relations Act implicitly excepts refusals to handle struck work
Whether a union may lawfully induce secondary employers to cease business with or refuse to handle products of a primary strike target
Whether a labor dispute may be extended beyond its primary situs when work is not farmed out

Procedural posture

The Union petitioned for review of a National Labor Relations Board order, and the Board cross-petitioned for enforcement of its order.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.

Having struck the Neo-Gravure Printing Company plant in Weehawken, New Jersey, the Union forbade all its members to handle Sunday supplements printed by Neo-Gravure for three New York City newspapers. In March 1961, on petition of the National Labor Relations Board’s Regional Director, the District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a preliminary injunction against the Union under 29 U.S.C. § 160 (Í). Kaynard for and on behalf of N. L. R. B. v. New York Mailers Union, D.C., 191 F.Supp. 880. In March 1962, the Board ordered the Union (a) to cease inducing “any individual employed by any person engaged in * * * an industry affecting commerce, including employees of” the three newspapers, to refuse to use or handle “materials or products * * * with an object of forcing or requiring any person,” including the three newspapers, to cease doing business with Neo-Gravure or to cease handling its products, “or with an object of forcing or requiring Neo-Gravure” to “recognize or bargain with” the Union unless it “has been certified as the representative of such employees”; and (b) to cease “Threatening, coercing, or restraining any person * * * in an industry affecting commerce,” including the three newspapers, “with an object of having them cease doing business with Neo-Gravure * * * or to cease handling or otherwise dealing in the products of Neo-Gravure * * * or with an object of forcing or requiring Neo-Gravure * * * to recognize or bargain with” the Union unless “certified as the representative of such employees”. In support of the order, the Board found that the Union had violated the corresponding provisions of §§ 8(b) (4) (i) (B) and 8 (b) (4) (ii) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended, 73 Stat. 542 (1959), 29 U.S.C., Supp. III, § 158.136 NLRB No. 19.

The Union asks us to set aside the Board’s order and the Board asks us to enforce it. Most of the facts are undisputed.

The Union’s “object” may be inferred from its acts. Local 761, Electrical Workers v. National Labor Relations Board, 366 U.S. 667, 674, 81 S.Ct. 1285, 6 L.Ed.2d 592 (1961). Cf. Los Angeles Mailers Union v. National Labor Relations Board, 114 U.S.App.D.C. -, 311 F.2d 121 (1962). The Union urges that § 8(b) (4) of the Act impliedly excepts refusals to handle “struck work”. But the cited legislative history shows at most an intent to preserve an “exception” regarding farmed-out struck work. Such work is not strictly an exception. Farming-out extends the primary situs to the second employer. In the present case, the Neo-Gravure plant continued to be the only primary situs. The Act intends to confine labor disputes to their primary situs. Cf. Local 1976, Carpenters Union v. National Labor Relations Board, 357 U.S. 93, 100, 78 S.Ct. 1011, 2 L.Ed.2d 1186 (1958). The newspapers are secondary or neutral employers. It is immaterial that the same union represents employees of both the primary and the secondary employers, National Labor Relations Board v. Highway Truckdrivers, 300 F.2d 317 (3d Cir., 1962); that the union’s contract says it need not handle struck work, Local 1976, Carpenters Union v. National Labor Relations Board, supra; and that other employees are available to handle the work, Los Angeles Mailers Union v. National Labor Relations Board, supra.

Though the Board did not find that the Union had violated the Act as against any employer except the three newspapers, it ordered the Union, within stated limits, to cease violations directed against “any person engaged in * * * an industry affecting commerce * * * ” “We think the order should be modified * * * to correspond to the violations actually found to have been committed.” United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 60, 64, 294 F.2d 256, 260 (1961). Communications Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board, 362 U.S. 479, 480, 80 S.Ct. 838, 4 L.Ed.2d 896 (1960). As modified, the order will be enforced.

So ordered.