Smitley v. National Labor Relations Board
327 F.2d 351 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Picketing that has a recognitional or organizational object does not violate Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act if its purpose is to truthfully advise the public that an employer is non-union, provided it does not have the effect of inducing work stoppages by employees of other businesses.
Facts:
- Petitioners owned the Crown Cafeteria in Long Beach, California.
- The employees of the cafeteria were not represented by a certified union.
- Unions picketed the Crown Cafeteria for more than thirty days.
- The purpose of the picketing was to truthfully advise the public that Crown Cafeteria employed non-union workers and did not have a contract with the unions.
- The picketing did not induce any individual employed by any other person to refuse to pick up, deliver, transport any goods, or perform any services at the cafeteria.
Procedural Posture:
- The owners of Crown Cafeteria filed unfair labor practice charges against the picketing unions with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- The NLRB issued a complaint alleging the unions violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act.
- Initially, the NLRB found by a 3-2 majority that the picketing constituted an unfair labor practice.
- Following a change in its membership, the NLRB reheard the case and, by a 3-2 majority, reversed its prior holding and dismissed the complaint.
- Crown Cafeteria, the petitioners, sought review of the NLRB's final order of dismissal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 picketing that has a recognitional or organizational object violate Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act if its purpose is to truthfully advise the public that an employer does not have a contract with a union, and it does not disrupt deliveries or services?
Opinions:
Majority - Duniway, J.
No. Picketing that has a recognitional object is not an unfair labor practice if it falls within the informational picketing proviso of Section 8(b)(7)(C). The court held that the second proviso of subparagraph (C), which protects picketing for the purpose of 'truthfully advising the public,' is an exception to the general prohibition on recognitional picketing. The court reasoned that to interpret the statute otherwise would render the proviso meaningless, as it is nearly impossible to conceive of informational picketing that does not also have an ultimate object of recognition or organization. A union may have a long-range strategic objective of recognition while its immediate purpose is to inform the public. The proviso, therefore, shields such dual-motive picketing from being an unfair labor practice, so long as it does not have the coercive secondary effect of halting deliveries or services.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the informational picketing proviso in Section 8(b)(7)(C), establishing that recognitional and informational motives can legally coexist. It prevents the proviso from becoming a nullity, as a purely informational purpose without any organizational object is practically nonexistent in labor disputes. The ruling provides unions with a safe harbor to engage in prolonged public appeals for support, so long as the picketing remains truthful and does not escalate into a secondary boycott by disrupting the employer's operations or supply chain. This interpretation solidifies a key tool for unions to exert economic pressure through public opinion rather than direct coercion of neutral parties.
Unlock the full brief for Smitley v. National Labor Relations Board