need the case quesitons answered NIRB v. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PACKERS AND WAREHOU

Question

need the case quesitons answered

NIRB v. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PACKERS AND WAREHOUSEMEN. LOCAL 760 (TREE FRUITS, ?NC.) SUPKEME COURT OF TE UNITED STATES, (1964). CASE 6.S the customers of the stores not to buy the BRENNAN, J.... Under Section 8(b) 4aXB) of the National Labor of certain firms against which one of the respondents Relations Act, as amended, it is an unfair labor was on strike. practice for a union "to threaten, coerce, or restrain Respondent Local 760 called a strike against fruit any person," with the object of "forcing or requiring packers and warehousemen doing business in Yakima, to cease using, selling, handling, trans- Washington. The struck firms sold Washington State porting, or otherwise dealing in the products of apples to the Safeway chain of retail stores in and any other producer or to cease doing business with about Seattle, Washington. Local 760, aided by respon- any other person...." A proviso excepts, however, dent Joint Council, instituted a customer boycot against the apples in support of the strike. They placed publkcicy, other than picketing, for the purpose pickets who walked back and forth before the custo of truthfully advising the public... that a product or products are produced by any employer with whom the labor organization has a primary dis- mers' entrances of 46 Safeway stores in Seattle. The pickets-two at each of 45 stores and three at the 46th store-wore placards and distributed handbills ute and are distributed by another employer, as which appealed to Safeway customers, and to the pubic long as sach publicity does not have an effect of generally, to refrain from buying Washington State inducing any individual employed by any person apples, which were only one of numerous food products other than the primary employer in the course of his employment to refuse to pick up, deliver, or sold in the stores. Before the pickets appeared at amy store, a letter was delivered to the store manager transport any goods, or not to perform any informing him that the picketing was only an appeal services, at the establishment of the employer to his customers not to buy Washington State apples engaged in such distribution and that the pickets were being expressly instructed The question in this case is whether the respondent "to patrol peacefully in front of the customer entrances unions violated this section when they limited their secondary picketing of retail stores to an appeal to of the store, to stay away from delivery entrances and not to interfere with the work of your employees, ot continued

Explanation / Answer

1) The union conduct complained of was picketing resorted to by the members of the union at its stores to request customers not to purchase apples sold by associate companies of Tree fruits Inc., at the stores, as the labor union had a disagreement with the company which was unresolved.

2) The NLRB went by the book and took the law passed by the Congress at face value stating that "picketing the premises of a secondary employer, although addressed solely to consumers, constitutes a threat, coercion, or restraint, and is therefore per se an unfair labor practice. This view, which makes the effect of picketing immaterial, was apparently followed by the General Counsel here, for he offered no evidence concerning the impact of the picketing on Safeway's sales or its relations with the struck firms". The Board observed that all secondary consumer picketing was intended to be banned by the Congress.

3)The supreme court observed that peaceful picketing of customers at secondary stores is not prohibited or illegal, as it was aimed at convincing customers from abstaining from purchasing a product, through peaceful means in complete co-operation with store employees without causing any harm or disruption. The Union aimed to enlist public support for through appeal to consumers of certain products sold at the stores. Each prospective buyer of the apples was provided literature explaining the basis for the request and rest was left to their discretion, hence, it was a request not coercion. Thus picketing, in this case, can be said to be constitutionally supported free speech than the picketing the Supreme Court intended to be banned.

4) The NLRA seems to base its decision solely on a single provision, and applies the same in a blanket manner as no picketing can be allowed in the premises of any secondary employer as it is to be considered as causing economic harm through threat and coercion. The opinion of the court however, can be summed in these sentences stated by it, "As we construe the statute, it condemns not picketing as such, but the use of threats, coercion and restraint to achieve specified objectives. Some picketing might come within the ambit of that prohibition. But here, there was no work stoppage, no interruption of deliveries, no violence or threat of violence. The record does not show whether pickets "confronted" consumers or whether consumers felt "coerced" by their presence. Nor does the record show that the picketing — directed against only one of hundreds of products sold by Safeway — caused or was likely to cause substantial economic injury".

References : https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/308/311/133135/

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse N
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.