NLRB v. Servette, Inc.
1964 U.S. LEXIS 2242, 12 L. Ed. 2d 121, 377 U.S. 46 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A union's peaceful request that managers of a secondary employer exercise their managerial discretion to cease dealing with a primary employer is not an unlawful inducement under § 8(b)(4)(i) of the NLRA. Furthermore, the publicity proviso of § 8(b)(4) protects handbilling that truthfully advises the public that a distributor is involved in a primary labor dispute, as a distributor is considered a 'producer' of the products it handles.
Facts:
- Servette, Inc. was a wholesale distributor of specialty merchandise to retail food chains.
- The Wholesale Delivery Drivers and Salesmen's Union, Local 848, was conducting a strike against Servette.
- To support the strike, union representatives visited managers of supermarkets that were customers of Servette.
- The union representatives asked the supermarket managers to stop handling and selling merchandise distributed by Servette.
- Union representatives warned managers that if they refused to cooperate, the union would distribute handbills to the public in front of their stores.
- In some instances, the union did pass out handbills asking the public not to buy specific items distributed by Servette.
- The supermarket managers had the authority from their employers to make the decision whether to continue purchasing products from Servette.
Procedural Posture:
- Servette, Inc. filed an unfair labor practice charge against the union with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- The NLRB, acting as the court of first instance, dismissed the complaint against the union.
- Servette appealed the NLRB's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed the NLRB's decision and set aside its order, finding that the union's conduct was unlawful.
- The National Labor Relations Board (petitioner) was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States 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 union's peaceful appeal to managers of a secondary employer to stop doing business with a primary employer, and its related handbilling activities, constitute an unfair labor practice under § 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
No. A union's peaceful appeal to managers of a secondary employer to stop doing business with a primary employer does not constitute an unfair labor practice under § 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Court reasoned that § 8(b)(4)(i)'s prohibition against inducing an 'individual' is aimed at preventing unions from encouraging employees to withhold their labor or refuse to perform their employment services. An appeal to a manager's discretionary business judgment does not fall into this category; rather, it is a request for the manager to perform a legitimate managerial function. To interpret subsection (i) to cover such appeals would render subsection (ii), which prohibits direct threats and coercion against the secondary employer, almost superfluous. Furthermore, the Court held that the union's handbilling was protected by the publicity proviso of § 8(b)(4). The term 'produced' in the proviso is not limited to manufacturing or processing but is broad enough to include the work of a distributor. A narrow reading would frustrate the legislative intent to protect a union's ability to inform the public and would illogically exclude unions like the Teamsters, who primarily represent employees of distributors and carriers, from the proviso's protection. Finally, a threat to engage in protected activity, such as lawful handbilling, is not an unlawful threat under subsection (ii).
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of permissible secondary activity under the National Labor Relations Act. By distinguishing between an unlawful inducement for an employee to withhold labor and a lawful appeal to a manager's business discretion, the Court provides unions with a clear path to seek voluntary cooperation from neutral employers. The broad interpretation of 'produced' to include distribution greatly expands the protection of the publicity proviso, making consumer-focused campaigns like handbilling a viable and protected strategy for unions engaged in disputes with wholesalers and carriers, not just manufacturers. This ruling solidifies the union's right to use peaceful persuasion and publicity to garner support in a primary labor dispute without running afoul of secondary boycott prohibitions.
