National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 1065, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Afl-Cio

We find here that so far as the board’s proposed order seeks to restrict proscribed conduct as to “any other employer,” “any other person” and “any other' subcontractor,” it is too broad. Otherwise, this court will enforce the order as submitted.

Section 8(b) (4) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, provides that it is an unfair labor practice for a union or its agents:

The National Labor Relations Board upheld the trial examiner’s finding that as to picketing of a general contractor’s job (one Mills) that “an object of respondents conduct was to compel Mills to cease doing business with Largent,” a shingle roofer subcontractor. Further it upheld the examiner in finding:

Respondent contends that its real purpose in picketing was to enforce an arbitration clause in the contract. If that be true, it says we should hold the picketing proper.

The trouble with that position is that it is not what the board found. From our examination of the record, we have to say there was evidence to support the finding. So we just do not reach the legal question of what we should do if the board found the only purpose of the pickets was to enforce an arbitration clause. We do not…