National Labor Relations Board v. International Rice Milling Co., Inc., et al.
341 U.S. 665 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A union's traditional primary picketing at an employer's place of business does not constitute an unlawful secondary boycott under § 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act merely because it encourages individual employees of a neutral employer to refuse to cross the picket line. The Act proscribes inducing or encouraging 'concerted' conduct by neutral employees, not isolated, individual actions that occur as a direct result of the primary picketing.
Facts:
- The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 201 (the union), was not the certified bargaining representative for employees of Kaplan Rice Mills, Inc.
- To secure recognition as the representative, the union established a picket line at the Kaplan Mill.
- The pickets carried signs stating the job was 'unfair' to the union; no Kaplan Mill employees participated.
- Two employees of The Sales and Service House, a neutral customer of the mill, arrived in a truck to pick up an order.
- The pickets formed a line, stopped the truck, and told the occupants there was a strike and they should turn back.
- The truck initially turned back but then, after a mill vice president intervened, attempted to enter the mill via a detour.
- As the truck proceeded towards the mill, the pickets ran toward it and threw stones at it.
Procedural Posture:
- The National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) Acting Regional Director issued a complaint against the union based on charges filed by several rice mills.
- An NLRB trial examiner conducted a hearing and concluded that the union had violated § 8(b)(4) of the Act.
- On review, the full National Labor Relations Board disagreed with its trial examiner's recommendation and issued a decision dismissing the complaint.
- International Rice Milling Co. sought review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which set aside the Board's order of dismissal and remanded the case.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted the NLRB's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 violate the secondary boycott provisions of § 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act when its agents, during lawful primary picketing, encourage individual employees of a neutral employer to honor the picket line, without seeking a broader concerted refusal to work from the neutral's employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Burton, J.
No, the union's conduct does not violate § 8(b)(4) of the Act. The statute's proscription against secondary boycotts is expressly limited to the inducement or encouragement of 'concerted' conduct by the employees of a neutral employer. The union's actions in this case, which involved encouraging two employees of a single neutral customer to honor a picket line at the primary employer's site, do not rise to the level of inducing concerted activity. The encouragement was directed only at individual employees as they happened to approach the primary picket line, not at the neutral employer's workforce as a whole. The legislative history and § 13 of the Act, which protects the right to strike, indicate that Congress did not intend for § 8(b)(4) to interfere with traditional primary picketing, even if it has incidental effects on neutral parties. The violence that occurred is immaterial to the § 8(b)(4) analysis, which focuses on the objective of the union's encouragement, not the means used.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the boundary between lawful primary picketing and unlawful secondary boycotts. It establishes that picketing at the primary employer's physical location (the 'primary situs') is presumptively lawful, even when it incidentally affects neutral employers. The Court's focus on the requirement of 'concerted' action by neutral employees narrowed the reach of § 8(b)(4), protecting a core union activity from being classified as an illegal secondary boycott simply because it discourages a neutral's employees from crossing the line. This case solidifies the principle that the NLRA's secondary boycott provisions target union attempts to enmesh neutral parties in a labor dispute by organizing their workforce, not the direct, incidental consequences of a picket line at the primary employer's business.
Unlock the full brief for National Labor Relations Board v. International Rice Milling Co., Inc., et al.