National Labor Relations Board v. Local 825, International Union of Operating Engineers

A general contractor (Burns) subcontracted construction work to three companies, all of which employed operating engineers who belonged to respondent union. That union, disputing the assignment by one of the subcontractors (White) of an operation involving an electric welding machine to members of another labor organization, advised Burns that all respondent's members on the jobsite would strike unless Burns bound itself and the subcontractors to give respondent jurisdiction over electric welding machines. The union went on strike when the employers refused to accede to its demands. After an arbitrator, to whom Burns had referred the matter, held that there was no reason to change the disputed work assignment, respondent union physically prevented operation of the welding machine. Thereafter an unfair labor practices proceeding against the union was brought. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that by inducing the subcontractors' employees to strike to force White to assign the disputed work to the operating engineers the union had violated § 8 (b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act, which bars strikes for the object of "forcing... any employer to assign particular work to employees in a particular labor organization... rather than to employees in another labor organization...." The NLRB also found that by applying economic pressure on the neutral employers the union had violated § 8 (b)(4)(B), which bars a union from exerting coercive pressure on a neutral or secondary employer where "an object thereof" is forcing him, inter alia, "to cease doing business with any other person." On the NLRB's petition for enforcement, the Court of Appeals sustained the NLRB's § 8 (b)(4)(D) finding but set aside its § 8 (b)(4)(B) finding, concluding that the union's objective was to force Burns "to use its influence with the subcontractor to change the subcontractor's conduct, not to terminate their relationship."

Held:


 * 1. In seeking to force Burns to bind all the subcontractors on the project to a particular form of job assignments and implying by its demands that Burns would have to force a change in White's policy or terminate White's contract, respondent union engaged in flagrant secondary conduct within the prohibition of § 8 (b)(4)(B). Pp. 302-305.


 * 2. Section 8 (b)(4)(D) is not an exclusive remedy for secondary pressure aimed at involving a neutral employer in a jurisdictional dispute over work assignments made by the primary employer. Pp. 305-306.

410 F. 2d 5, reversed and remanded.

MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACK, HARLAN, BRENNAN, WHITE, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEWART, J., joined, post, p. 306.

Arnold Ordman argued the cause for the National Labor Relations Board, petitioner in No. 40 and respondent in No. 42. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Peter L. Strauss, Dominick L. Manoli, and ''Norton J. Come. Vincent J. Apruzzese'' argued the cause for petitioners in No. 42. With him on the brief were Francis A. Mastro and Merritt T. Viscardi.

Earl S. Aronson argued the cause for respondent Local 825, International Union of Operating Engineers, in both cases. With him on the brief was Thomas E. Durkin, Jr.

Laurence Gold argued the cause for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations as amicus curiae urging affirmance in both cases. With him on the brief were J. Albert Woll and Thomas E. Harris.

Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal in both cases were filed by William B. Barton and Harry J. Lambeth for Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc., and by Winthrop A. Johns and Lawrence T. Zimmerman for the Associated General Contractors of America et al.