In a collective bargaining agreement between a contractors'
association and Local 22 of an insulators and asbestos workers'
union, it is provided that the employer will not contract out work
relating to the preparation, distribution and application of pipe
and boiler coverings. In No. 206, Johns-Manville (J-M), an
association member engaged in a construction project, purchased
from a manufacturer precut stainless steel bands for fastening
insulation material around pipes. Since customarily the cutting
work was reserved by the collective bargaining agreement for J-M
employee members of Local 22, the union instructed its members at
the jobsite not to install the precut bands. The association
charged Local 22 with violating § 8(b)(4)(B) of the National Labor
Relations Act. The NLRB, holding that the union's conduct had been
taken to protest a deprivation of work traditionally performed by
its members, and thus constituted primary activity, dismissed the
charge, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The association
petitioned for certiorari. In No. 413, Armstrong Company, an
association member, was engaged in a construction project within
the jurisdiction of Local 113, a sister union of Local 22.
Armstrong bought from a manufacturer asbestos fittings upon which
had already been performed the cutting and mitering operations
customarily performed by Local 22 at an Armstrong shop. Local 113's
agents informed Armstrong that the fittings would not be installed
unless the cutting and mitering had been performed by its sister
Local 22. The association charged Local 113 with violating §
8(b)(4)(B). The NLRB having found Local 113's conduct had been
taken to preserve work customarily performed by Armstrong's own
employees, and was thus primary, dismissed the charge. The Court
of
Page 386 U. S. 665
Appeals reversed, holding that Local 113 had no economic
interest in Local 22's breach of contract claim and that,
therefore, Local 113 was coercing Armstrong not for its own
benefit, but for that of another local at the expense of a neutral
employer. The NLRB petitioned for certiorari.
Held:
1. In No. 206, there having been substantial evidence to support
the NLRB's finding, the judgment is affirmed on the authority of
National Woodwoork Mfrs. Assn. v. NLRB, ante, p.
386 U. S. 612. Pp.
666-667.
2. In No. 413, the NLRB's finding, supported by substantial
evidence, was that Local 113's object was to influence Armstrong in
a dispute with Armstrong employees, and not for its effect
elsewhere. Since collective activity by employees of the primary
employer was involved, the purpose of which was to affect its labor
policies, the conduct of the members of Local 113 in support of
their fellow employees was not secondary, and thus not violative of
§ 8(b)(4)(B).
National Woodwork Mfrs. Assn., supra,
followed. Pp.
386 U. S.
668-669.
357 F.2d 182, affirmed in No. 206, reversed in No. 413.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
These are companion cases to Nos. 110 and 111,
National
Woodwork Mfr. Assn. v. NLRB and
NLRB v. National Woodwork
Mfrs. Assn., ante, p.
386
U. S. 612. A provision of the collective bargaining
agreement between the Houston Insulation Contractors Association
and Local 22, International Association of Heat and Frost
Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO, provides, in pertinent
part, that the employer will not contract out work relating to "the
preparation, distribution and application of pipe and boiler
coverings." In No. 206,
Page 386 U. S. 666
the Contractors Association seeks review of the dismissal by the
National Labor Relations Board, 148 N.L.R.B. 866, affirmed by the
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 357 F.2d 182, 189, of §
8(b)(4)(B) charges brought against Local 22 because of its
activities designed to enforce the agreement. National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, 73 Stat. 543. In No. 413, the Board
challenges the holding of the Court of Appeals, reversing the
Board, that similar conduct by a sister Local 113, designed to
protect the work guaranteed to Local 22 by the agreement, violated
§ 8(b)(4)(B). We granted both petitions and set them for argument
with Nos. 110 and 111. We affirm in No. 206 and reverse in No.
413.
No. 206: Johns-Manville Company, a member of the
Contractors Association, engaged in a construction project in Texas
City, Texas, purchased from Techalloy Corporation, a manufacturer
of insulation materials, stainless steel bands used to fasten
asbestos material around pipes to be insulated. The bands had been
precut to specification by Techalloy's employees. Customarily,
Johns-Manville had ordered rolls of wire which were then cut to
size by members of Local 22. The cutting work was reserved for
Johns-Manville employee members of Local 22 by the quoted provision
of the collective bargaining agreement between the Association and
the Local. Agents of Local 22 instructed its members on the jobsite
not to install the precut bands. After the hearing on the complaint
issued on the Contractors Association's charge that this conduct
violated § 8(b)(4)(B), the Board held that
"[t]he conduct complained of herein was taken to protest . . . a
deprivation of work, its object being to protect or preserve for
employees certain work customarily performed by them. This conduct
constituted primary activity, and is protected by the Act. . .
."
148 N.L.R.B. at 869. The Court of
Page 386 U. S. 667
Appeals found that there was substantial evidence to support
this finding, and sustained it. [
Footnote 1] The Association here attacks the
substantiality of the evidence supporting the Board's finding, but
we agree wit the Court of Appeals.
See Universal Camera Corp.
v. Labor Board, 340 U. S. 474. In
that circumstance, our holding today in
National Woodwork Mfrs.
Assn. v. NLRB, supra, requires an affirmance in No. 206.
No. 413: Armstrong Company, a member of the Contractors
Association, was engaged in a construction project in Victoria,
Texas, within the jurisdiction of Local 113 of the Heat and Frost
Insulators and Asbestos Workers. The cutting and mitering of
asbestos fittings for such jobs was customarily performed at
Armstrong's Houston shop, which was within Local 22's jurisdiction.
Armstrong purchased from Thorpe Company, a manufacturer of
insulation materials, asbestos fittings upon which the cutting and
mitering work had already been performed. Agents of Local 113
informed Armstrong that fittings would not be installed unless the
cutting and mitering had been performed by its sister Local 22, as
provided by Local 22's bargaining agreement. [
Footnote 2] The Board found,
Page 386 U. S. 668
as it had in No. 206, that the object of this refusal was
primary -- the preservation of work customarily performed by
Armstrong's own employees. 148 N.L.R.B. at 869. The Court of
Appeals reversed on the ground that Local 113 "had no economic
interest in Local 22's claim of breach of contract," and that,
therefore, "it was coercing Armstrong not for its own benefit, but
for the benefit of another local at the expense of a neutral
employer." 357 F.2d at 189. We disagree.
National Woodwork Mfrs., supra, holds that collective
activity by employees of the primary employer, the object of which
is to affect the labor policies of that primary employer, and not
engaged in for its effect elsewhere, is protected primary
activity.
"Congress was not concerned to protect primary employers against
pressures by disinterested unions, but rather to protect
disinterested employers against direct pressures by any union.
[
Footnote 3]"
The finding of the Board, supported by substantial evidence, was
that Local 113's object was to influence Armstrong in a dispute
with Armstrong employees, and not for its effect elsewhere.
Primary employees have traditionally been assured the right to
take concerted action against their employer to gain the "mutual
aid or protection" guaranteed by § 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 140, whether or not the
resolution of the particular dispute directly affects all of them.
As Judge Learned Hand stated in
Labor Board v. Peter Cailler
Kohler Swiss Chocolates Co., 130 F.2d 503, 505-506:
"When all the other workmen in a shop make common cause with a
fellow workman over his separate grievance, and go out on strike in
his support, they engage in a 'concerted activity' for 'mutual
Page 386 U. S. 669
aid or protection,' although the aggrieved workman is the only
one of them who has any immediate stake in the outcome. The rest
know that, by their action, each one of them assures himself, in
case his turn ever comes, of the support of the one whom they are
all then helping, and the solidarity so established is 'mutual aid'
in the most literal sense, as nobody doubts."
A boycott cannot become secondary because engaged in by primary
employees not directly affected by the dispute, or because only
engaged in by some of the primary employees, and not the entire
group. Since that situation does not involve the employer in a
dispute not his own, his employees' conduct in support of their
fellow employees is not secondary, and therefore not a violation of
§ 8(b)(4)(B).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals in No. 206 is affirmed, and
in No. 413 is reversed.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, and
MR. JUSTICE STEWART dissent for the reasons expressed in MR.
JUSTICE STEWART's dissenting opinion in
National Woodwork Mfrs.
Assn. v. NLRB, ante, p.
386 U. S.
650.
* Together with No. 413,
National Labor Relations Board v.
Houston Insulation Contractors Association, also on certiorari
to the same court.
[
Footnote 1]
The Association did not charge the Union with violation of §
8(e) (73 Stat. 543), and the validity of the work preservation
clause was not an issue in the hearing before the Board. But the
Board appears to have assumed that the clause was valid in holding
that the object of the Union's conduct pursuant thereto was a
primary one of work preservation. The Court of Appeals expressly
held, as an aspect of its finding that § 8(b)(4)(B) was not
violated by Local 22's activities, that the clause was valid. 357
F.2d at 188-189.
[
Footnote 2]
A mitered fitting is described by the president of Thorpe
Company as
"an insulation item that is used to cover something other than a
straight piece of pipe in a pipe line, and this is made by taking
standard insulation pipe, covering and cutting it on a bias or
miter, and then gluing it together or sticking it together so that
it will conform to the fitting that you are trying to shape it
to."
[
Footnote 3]
United Association of Journeymen, Local 106
(Columbia-Southern Chemical Corporation), 110 N.L.R.B. 206,
209.
