National Labor Relations Board v. Denver Building & Construction Trades Council et al.
341 U.S. 675 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A labor union commits an unfair labor practice under § 8(b)(4)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act when it engages in a strike against a neutral general contractor if an object of the strike is to force the general contractor to cease doing business with a non-union subcontractor on the same construction project.
Facts:
- In September 1947, Doose & Lintner, a general contractor, awarded a subcontract for electrical work on a commercial building project in Denver to Gould & Preisner.
- Gould & Preisner was a non-union firm, and its employees were the only non-union workers on the project.
- All other workers on the site, including those employed by Doose & Lintner and other subcontractors, were members of unions affiliated with the Denver Building and Construction Trades Council (the Council).
- In November 1947, a union representative informed Gould & Preisner that the project could not proceed with non-union workers present.
- On January 9, 1948, the Council placed a single picket at the job site with a sign stating, 'This Job Unfair to Denver Building and Construction Trades Council.'
- Following the placement of the picket, all union employees walked off the job, halting all work except for the electrical work being done by Gould & Preisner's employees.
- On January 22, 1948, to resume construction, Doose & Lintner terminated its contract with Gould & Preisner and ordered them off the job.
- The next day, the Council removed its picket, and the union employees returned to work.
Procedural Posture:
- Gould & Preisner filed unfair labor practice charges against the Council with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- The NLRB's trial examiner found that the Council had committed an unfair labor practice, and the Board adopted this finding, issuing a cease and desist order.
- The Council petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of the NLRB's order.
- The Court of Appeals set aside the NLRB's order, concluding that the union's action was a primary, not secondary, strike and therefore permissible.
- The NLRB (the petitioner) successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 labor union commit an unfair labor practice under § 8(b)(4)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act by engaging in a strike against a general contractor with an object of forcing the contractor to terminate its contract with a non-union subcontractor on the same construction project?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Burton
Yes, the union's strike constituted an unfair labor practice under § 8(b)(4)(A) because an object of the strike was to exert pressure on a neutral party. The statute prohibits strikes where 'an object' is to force any employer to cease doing business with any other person. Here, the Council's dispute was with Gould & Preisner for using non-union labor. However, the strike was directed at the general contractor, Doose & Lintner, to force them to terminate their subcontract with Gould & Preisner. The fact that the strike's ultimate goal was an all-union job site does not excuse the use of this unlawful secondary pressure. The Court held that the general contractor and subcontractor were separate business entities, making Doose & Lintner a neutral party shielded from disputes not their own. The picketing was not protected speech under § 8(c) because it served as a signal to induce an illegal strike.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
No, the union's action was a primary labor dispute and not an illegal secondary boycott. The core of the dispute was the long-standing union principle of not working alongside non-union labor on the same job site. The presence of a subcontractor is a 'fortuitous business arrangement' that does not alter the fundamental nature of the protest. Had the general contractor hired the non-union workers directly, the strike would have been unquestionably legal. The union's action was confined to the immediate job site where the conflict existed and was not an attempt to spread the dispute to other, unrelated fronts. Therefore, interpreting this as a secondary boycott improperly restricts the right to strike guaranteed by § 13 of the Act.
Analysis:
This case established the 'common situs' doctrine for secondary boycotts, holding that a general contractor and subcontractors working on the same construction site are treated as separate, independent employers. The decision significantly curtailed the power of construction unions to picket an entire worksite over a dispute with a single subcontractor. By defining the general contractor as a neutral party, the Court solidified a broad interpretation of § 8(b)(4)(A), making it illegal to apply economic pressure to a neutral employer to achieve an objective against another employer. This precedent has had a profound and lasting impact on labor relations in the construction industry, requiring unions to narrowly tailor their picketing to avoid enmeshing neutral parties.
Unlock the full brief for National Labor Relations Board v. Denver Building & Construction Trades Council et al.