National Woodwork Manufacturers Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board
354 F.2d 594 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A union engages in an unlawful secondary boycott under § 8(b)(4)(B) of the NLRA when it refuses to handle prefabricated products to preserve work for its members if the immediate employer is contractually bound to use those products and lacks the right to control the work assignment. An agreement to boycott such products is an unlawful "hot cargo" clause under § 8(e) and is not protected by the construction industry proviso.
Facts:
- The Metropolitan District Council of Carpenters (the 'Council') had a bylaw, Rule 17, which was also part of its collective bargaining agreements, stating that its members would not handle prefabricated doors that had been cut or fitted for hardware at the factory.
- The purpose of Rule 17 was to preserve the work of cutting and fitting doors for the union's carpenters to perform at the construction site.
- On three separate construction projects (Coatesville Hospital, North Junior High School, and St. Aloysius Academy), the general contractors were required by the architects' specifications to purchase and install prefabricated doors.
- When these prefabricated doors, manufactured by companies like Hardwood Products, were delivered to the job sites, union agents instructed the carpenters to refuse to install them, citing Rule 17.
- At the Coatesville Hospital job, the contractor, L. F. Driscoll Company, was told the job would be 'struck' if the carpenters were forced to hang the doors; Driscoll ultimately agreed to pay the carpenters for work they did not perform to get the doors hung.
- On a fourth project, a housing project run by Frouge Corporation, the job specifications did not require prefabricated doors, but Frouge independently chose to purchase them.
- When the prefabricated doors arrived at the Frouge job, the union carpenters also refused to install them, and Frouge subsequently replaced them with non-prefabricated doors which the carpenters then fitted and installed.
Procedural Posture:
- National Woodwork Manufacturers Association (NWMA) filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the Metropolitan District Council of Carpenters (the 'Council').
- The NLRB's General Counsel issued a complaint alleging the Council violated sections 8(b)(4)(A), 8(b)(4)(B), and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act.
- After a hearing before a trial examiner, the NLRB issued a decision and order.
- The Board's order found the Council violated § 8(b)(4)(B) on the three jobs where specifications required prefabricated doors but dismissed the complaint regarding the Frouge job and the alleged § 8(e) violation.
- NWMA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for review, seeking to overturn the dismissals. The Council petitioned to have the violation findings set aside. The NLRB petitioned for enforcement of its order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a union's enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement provision prohibiting its members from installing prefabricated doors violate the secondary boycott and 'hot cargo' provisions of the National Labor Relations Act when the union's objective is to preserve on-site work for its members?
Opinions:
Majority - Schnackenberg, J.
Yes, the union's enforcement of the provision violates the National Labor Relations Act in situations where the employer lacks control over the product selection. The court distinguishes between primary and secondary activity based on whether the immediate employer has the 'right to control' the work. On the three jobs where the architect's specifications required prefabricated doors (Coatesville, etc.), the contractors were neutral secondary employers with no power to assign the fitting work to the union. Therefore, the union's pressure and work refusal constituted an illegal secondary boycott under § 8(b)(4)(B), as its true target was the prefabricated product itself and its manufacturer. In contrast, on the Frouge job, the contractor chose to use prefabricated doors and was not bound by specifications. Thus, Frouge had the 'right to control' the work, and the union's pressure was a lawful primary dispute aimed at preserving work from its direct employer. The court also held that Rule 17 is an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under § 8(e) because it is an agreement for an employer to cease using the products of another employer. This type of product boycott agreement is not saved by the § 8(e) construction industry proviso, which applies only to work done on the job site, not to goods manufactured in a factory.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'right to control' test for distinguishing between lawful primary work preservation efforts and unlawful secondary boycotts in the construction industry. By focusing on whether the immediate employer has the contractual power to assign the disputed work, the court establishes a clear line: if the employer's hands are tied by project specifications, union pressure is deemed secondary and illegal. This ruling limits a union's ability to combat the use of prefabricated materials that eliminate traditional on-site tasks, impacting the balance of power between labor and technological advancements in construction. It also narrowly interprets the construction industry proviso to § 8(e), preventing unions from using 'hot cargo' clauses to enforce boycotts against products manufactured off-site.
Unlock the full brief for National Woodwork Manufacturers Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board