# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 27 86

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Tho m as B. W art m an ; Vi ct or ia ’s Mark et , LLC; Gle n Lak e’s Mar ke t, LLC; ART, LLC; Th om as W . W art m an

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Uni te d F oo d a nd Co m

m erci al W or ke rs Loca l 6 53

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 9 , 20 17
Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 15 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, COLLOTON , and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Tho m as B. W art m an , Vict or ia ’s Mar ke t, LLC ; Glen Lak e’s Mar ke t, LLC;
ART, LLC; an d Tho m as W

. W art m an (Pl a i nt iff s) fil ed su it un de r 29 U.S.C. § 18 7.

Pl ai nt iff s al le ge d th at Uni te d Fo od an d Co m m erci al W or ke rs Loc al 65 3 (th e Uni on )

ha d en ga ge d in un fai r la bo r pr act ic es , in vi ol at io n of § 8( b) (4 ) of th e Nati on al Lab or

Re l a ti on s Act (th e Act)

, 29 U.S.C. § 15 8( b) (4 ). Pl ai nt iff s ap pe al fro m th e di st ric tco ur t’s or de r gr an ti ng th e Uni on ’s m ot io n to di sm is s fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m up on 1

whi ch rel ie f co ul d b e g ran te d. W e affi rm

. 2

I. Back gr ou nd

The fact s se t fo rth be lo w are co ns is te nt wit h th e al le ga ti on s se t f o r t h in

Pl ai nt iff s’ co m pl ai nt

. Gil li s v. Pri nc ip ia Co rp ., 83 2 F.3 d 86 5, 86 8 n.3 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 )
(ta ki ng as tru e fact s fro m co m pl ai nt fo r pu rp os es of a m ot io n to di sm is s)

. Non -p art ie s

Fres h Seas on s Mar ke t, LLC, an d Fres h Seas on s Vict or ia

, LLC, op erat ed two gr oc ery

st or es (co ll ect iv el y , Fres h Seas on s) in Mi nn es ot a. The y en te r e d in to a co ll ect iv e
ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t w i t h th e Uni on

. Tho m as B. W art m an ha d a 96 % own ers hi p

in te res t in Fres h Seas on s. His s on Tho m as W . Wart m an ha d no own ers hi p in te res t

in th e st or es

. Fres h Seas on s cl os ed in 20 14

, fo ll owi ng whi ch th e Uni on cl ai m ed th at

Fres h Seas on s owe d it s u ni on em pl oyees un pa id wag es , va cat io n pa y , an d ho li da y

pa y

.

Afte r Fres h Seas on s c lo se d, two ne w gr oc ery st or es op en ed in th ei r
lo cat io ns —Gl en Lak e’s Mar ke t a nd Vict or ia ’s Mar ke t (co ll ect iv el y , th e Mar ke ts ).

Tho m as B. W art m an ha d no own ers hi p in t e r e s t i n th e Mar ke ts ; th ey were own ed

eq ua ll y by Ma rk Pl oe n an d ART, LL C. Tho m as B. W art m an ’s t hr ee so ns —Ad am , Ry an , an d Tho m as W.

— h e l d e qu al sh ares of ART, LLC. The re was li tt le ov erl ap

am on g th e em

pl oyees of Fres h Seas on s an d th e Mar ke t s , an d th e Mar ke ts di d no t

en te r in to a co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng ag reem en t wi th th e Uni on

.

The Hon or ab le Dav id S. Dot y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 1

Mi nn es ot a.

The di st ric t co ur t de cl in e d t o ex erci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er 2

Pl ai nt iff s’ st at e-l aw cl ai m s an d di sm is se d th em w i t h o u t pr ejud ic e, a de ci si on th at Pl ai nt iff s d o n ot ch al le ng e o n a pp eal

.

-2

-Beg in ni ng in May 20 15

, th e Uni on pi ck et ed th e Mar k e ts da il y fo r

ap pr o x i mat el y si x m on th s. Acco rd in g to Pl ai nt iff s, pi ck et ers acco st ed th e st or es ’

pa tro ns an d to ok ph ot og rap hs of t h e i r v e hi cl es an d li cen se pl at es

. Uni on m em be rs

al so di sp la y ed ba nn ers , di st rib ut ed ha nd bi ll s, pu bl is he d art ic le s, an d es ta bl is he d a
web si te

, po st in g it s cl ai m s of un pa id co m pe ns at io n an d ur gi ng th e pu bl ic no t to sh op

at th e Mar ke ts

. The se co m m un ic at io ns st at ed th at “ Tom W art m an ” o w e d un pa id

c o mpen sa ti on to Fres h Seas on s’ em pl oyees, an d th ey di d no t di st in gu is h be t w e e n
Tho m as B. W art m an an d Th om as W . W art m an

.

The co m pl a i n t al le ge d th at th e Uni on ’s pi ck et in g an d pu bl ic it y cam pa ig n

ag ai ns t th e Mar ke ts co ns ti tu te d an effo rt “ to th reat en , co erce , or res tra in an y pe rs on

en ga ge d in co m

m erce or in an in du s t r y a f f e ct in g co m

m erce ,” wit h th e ob

ject of

“ fo rci ng or req ui rin g an y pe rs on

. . . to ceas e do in g bu si ne ss wit h an y ot he r pe rs on ,”

in vi ol at io n of 29 U.S.C. § 15 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B). Th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e Uni on ’s

m ot io n to di sm is s, reas on in g th at be cau se Fres h Seas on s was no lo ng er in bu si ne ss , th e Uni on ’s ob

ject co ul d no t ha ve be en to fo rce or req ui re th e Mar ke ts to ceas e do in g
bu si ne ss wit h it

. The co ur t co nc lu de d t ha t t he ob ject o f th e p ic ke ti ng an d pu bl ic it y

cam pa ig n di d no t fal l wit hi n th e st at ut e be cau se th e Uni on in st ead “ so ug ht to pr es su re pl ai nt iff s, wh o a r e a c qu ai nt ed wit h or rel at ed to th e own ers of Fres h Seas on s, to

en co ur ag e Fres h Seas on s to res ol ve it s di sp ut e wit h th e Uni on .” D. Ct

. Ord er of May

19 , 20 16

.

II. Dis cu ss io n

“ W e rev ie w de n o v o a d is tri ct co ur t’s gr an t of a m ot io n to di sm is s un de r
Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (b ) ( 6 )

. To su rv iv e a m ot io n to di sm is s, a

co m pl ai nt m us t co nt ai n su ffi ci en t fact ua l m at te r, acce pt ed as tru e, to st at e a cl ai m to

rel ie f th at is pl au si bl e on it s face .” Gil li s, 83 2 F.3 d at 87 1 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

an d c it at io n o m it te d)

.

-3

-It is an un fai r la bo r pr act ic e f o r a l a b or or ga ni zat io n “ to th reat en , co erce , or

r e s t r a i n an y pe rs on en ga ge d in co m m erce or in an in du st ry affe ct in g co m m erce , ”

whe re an ob

ject th ereo f is “ fo rci ng or req ui rin g an y pe r s o n t o c e a se us in g, se ll in g,

h a n d l in g, tra ns po rti ng , or ot he rwis e de al in g in th e pr od uc ts of an y ot he r pr od uc e r ,
pr oc es so r, or m an uf

act ur er, or to ceas e do in g bu si ne ss wit h an y ot he r pe rs on .”

29 U.S.C. § 15 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B). “ [Tha t] st at ut e is pa rt of § 8( b) (4 ), in whi ch Co ng res s

cu rb ed th e us e o f c o e r c i v e an d di sr up ti ve un io n act io ns un de rta ke n to pr es su re a

ne ut ral or se co nd ary em

pl oyer

. . . wit h th e in te nt of fo rci ng th e ne ut ral to ceas e do in g
bu si ne ss wit h a pr im ary em pl oyer

. . . wit h whi ch th e un io n ha s an on -g oi ng co ll ect iv e
ba rg ai ni ng di sp ut e.” Lab or ers Dis t. Co un ci l v. NLRB, 68 8 F.3 d 37 4, 37 6- 77 (8 th Ci r.

20 12 ). “ Res tri ct io ns on se co nd ary bo y co tt s

. . . im pl eme n t du al co ng res si on al

ob jecti ve s of pr es erv in g th e rig ht of la bo r or ga ni zat io ns to br in g pr es su re to be ar on

of fen di ng em

pl oyers in pr im ary l a b o r di sp ut es an d of sh ie ld in g un of fen di ng

em pl oyers an d ot he rs fro m pr es su res an d co nt ro ve rs ie s no t th ei r own .” Id

. at 37 7
(q uo ti ng Sh eet Met al W or ke rs ’ In t’l Ass ’n v. NLRB, 98 9 F.2 d 51 5, 51 9 ( D

. C

. C i r.

19 93 ) )

. Th e st at ut e pr ov id es th at § 15 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B) no t be co ns tru ed “ to m ak e

un la wfu l, wh ere n ot ot he rwis e u nl awfu l, an y pri m ary st rik e o r pr im ary pi ck et in g.”

The Uni on do es no t di sp ut e th at it s co nd uc t di d “ th reat en , co erce , or res tra in ”

th e Mar ke ts

. It arg ue s, ho wev er, t h a t i t d i d n o t ha ve as it s ob ject th at of fo rci ng or

req ui rin g an y pe rs on to ceas e do in g bu si ne ss wit h an y ot he r pe rs on

. Acco rd in g to th e
Uni on , it co ul d no t ha ve ha d su ch an ob ject in li gh t of th e fact th at th e Fres h Seas on s

st or es were cl os ed

, m ak in g im po ss ib le an y at te m

pt to fo rce th e Mar ke ts to ceas e
do in g b us in es s wi th th em

.

Pl ai nt iff s co nt en d th at th e ph ras e “ fo rci ng or req ui rin g an y pe rs on

. . . to ceas e
do in g bu si ne ss wit h an y ot he r pe rs on ” pr oh ib it s a un io n fro m pi ck et in g a se co nd ary

em pl oyer wit h th e ai m of fo rci ng it to ex ert pr es su re on th e pr im ary em pl oyer, ev en
whe re su ch pr es su re ta ke s a fo rm ot he r th an th e di sr up ti on of a bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi p.
The y po in t to cas es whi ch th ey sa y su pp or t th is th eo ry

. See NLRB v. Loc al 82 5, In t’l

-4

-Uni on of Ope rat in g Eng ’rs, 40 0 U.S. 29 7, 30 2- 03 (1 97 1) (d es cri b i n g a se co nd ary

bo y co tt as “ pr es su re br ou gh t to be ar, no t up on th e em pl oyer who al on e is a pa rty [to

a d is pu te ], bu t u po n so m e th ird pa rty who ha s no co nc ern in it wit h t he ob jecti ve of

fo rci ng th e th ird pa rty to br in g pr es su re o n t h e em pl oyer to ag ree to th e un io n’s

de m an ds ” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ); R uz ic ka Elec . & So ns , In c. v. In t’l Bh d. of Elec

. W or ke rs , Loc al 1, 42 7 F.3 d 51 1, 51 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (“ Onl y
whe n a la bo r or ga ni zat io n in te nd s ‘to en m es h ne ut ral se co nd ary em pl oyers in pr im ary

la bo r di sp ut es be twee n th e un io n an d an ot he r em pl oyer’ do es it vi ol at e fed eral la bo r

la w.” (q uo ti ng NLRB v. Co ns tr. & Gen

. Lab or ers ’ Uni on Loc al 11 40

, 57 7 F.2 d 16

, 18 (8 th Ci r. 19 78 ))); se e al so Ru zi ck a, 42 7 F.3 d at 51 9 (“ If Loc al 1 en ga ge d in

se co nd ary act iv it y , th en it vi ol at ed fed eral lab or law.”)

.

In th es e cas es , ho wev er, it was cl ear th at an ob ject of th e un io n was to fo rce a

pe rs on to cea se do in g bu si ne ss wit h an ot he r pe rs on

. In Ru zi ck a, th e un io n ha d a

pr im ary di sp ut e wit h an el ect ric al co n t r a c t or , whi ch ha d be en hi red to pe rfo rm
el ect ric al wor k at a un iv ers it y

. Ru zi ck a, 42 7 F.3 d at 51 3- 14

. The un iv ers it y

es ta b l i s he d a du al -g at e syste m , res erv in g a ga te fo r th e el ect ric al co nt ract or an d it s

su pp li ers an d an ot he r ga te fo r ne ut ral co nt ract or s who were no t in vo lv ed in th e la bo r
di sp ut e. Id

. at 51 4. The el ect ric al co nt ract or al le ge d th at th e un io n ha d pi ck et ed th e

ne ut ral ga te

. Id

. at 52 0- 21

. Thu s, in Ru zi ck a th e co ur t co ns id ered a se t of fact s fro m
whi ch a ju r y c o u l d fin d th at th e un io n’s ob ject was to in te rfer e in th e bu si ne ss
rel at io ns hi ps am on g m

ul ti pl e em

pl oyers— th e el ect ri c a l c on tra ct or , th e ne ut ral

co nt ract or s, t he ge ne ral co nt ract or , and th e u ni ve rs it y

.

In Ope rat in g Eng in eers , a ge ne ral co nt ract or fo r th e co ns tru ct io n of a nu cl ear

pow er ge ne ra

tio n pl an t su bc on tra ct ed wor k to th ree co m pa ni es —Whi te

, Ch ic ag o, an d

Po iri er. 40 0 U.S. at 29 9- 30 0. Em pl oyees of al l th ree su bc on tra ct or s were m em be rs

of th e un io n, bu t un li k e t h e o t he r two

, W hi te di d no t ha ve a co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng

ag reem en t wit h th e un io n

. Afte r W hi te in st al le d an el ect ric weld in g m ach in e, th e

un io n de m an de d th at th e m ach in e be op erat ed by un io n m em be rs

. Id

. at 30 0. W hi te

-5

-refu se d, an d th e un io n th reat en ed th e ge ne ral co nt ract or wit h a st rik e if it di d no t si gn

a co nt ract th at wou ld req ui re th e su bc on tra ct or s to as si gn th e op erat io n of th e weld in g

m ach in e to u n i on m em

be rs

. Id

. Afte r th e ge ne ral co nt ract or refu se d to do so , th e

un io n or de red a st rik e. Id

. at 30 0- 01

. The co ur t of ap pe al s co nc lu de d th at th e un io n

la ck ed th e req ui si te ob

ject be cau se it s ai m was m erel y fo r th e g e n e r a l co nt ract or to

in flu en ce W hi te to ch an ge it s co nd uc t, but the Su pr em e Co ur t reject ed th at co nc lu si on

as to o na rro w. Id

. at 30 4. The Co ur t reas on ed th at

, al th ou gh th e un io n’s pr efer en ce

was fo r th e su bc on tra ct or s to co m pl y wit h it s de m an ds

, “ [t]he cl ear im pl ic at io n of th e
de m an ds was th at [th e ge ne ral co nt ract or ] wou ld be req ui red ei th er to fo rce a ch an ge

in W hi te ’s po li cy

or t o t erm in at e Whit e’s co nt ract .” Id . at 3 05

.

In bo th R uz ic ka an d Ope rat in g Eng in eers , th e un io ns ’ co nd uc t sa ti sf ie d th e

se co nd pr on g of § 15 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B) be cau se it was de si gn ed to fo rce on e em pl oyer to

ceas e do in g bu si ne ss wit h an ot he r em pl oyer. Acco rd in gl y , th es e cas es do no t su pp or t

th e pr op os it io n th at “ en m es hi ng ” a se co nd ary p art y i n th e un io n’s co nf li ct wit h th e

own er of a no w-d efu nc t bu si ne ss is co nd uc t su ffi ci en t to co ns ti tu te a vi ol at io n of th e

st at ut e.

Alt ern at iv el y , Pl ai nt i f

f s a rg ue th at th e Uni on vi ol at ed § 15 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B)

be cau se it s ob

ject was to forc e th e Mar ke ts ’ cu st om ers an d su pp li ers to ceas e do in g
bu si ne ss wit h th e st or es . Plai nt iff s ar gu e th at , un de r In te rn at io na l Long sh or em en ’s

Ass ’n v. Alli ed In te rn at io na l, Inc., 456 U.S. 21 2 (1 98 2)

, th e “ ceas e do in g bu si ne ss ”

ob ject se t fo rth in § 15 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B) do es no t req ui re a bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi p be twee n

th e pr im ary an d se co nd ary em pl oyers, an d th at th e di sr up ti on of bu si ne ss
rel at io ns hi ps be twee n ne ut ral pa rti es m eet s th e st at ut e’s ob ject el em en t. In th at cas e,

a lo ng sh or em en ’s un io n refu se d to ha nd le carg o to o r f r om th e So vi et Uni on fo r

po li ti cal reas on s. Id

. at 21 4- 15

. The un io n’s refu sa l to do so di sr up te d bu si ne ss
be t w e e n All ie d, an im

po rte r of Ru ss ia n pr od uc ts ; W at erm an , a sh ip pe r of th os e

pr od uc ts ; an d Cl ark

, a st ev ed or in g co m pa ny th at un lo ad ed W at erm an ’s sh ip s an d

who se em pl oyees were m em

be rs of th e lo ng sh or em en ’s un io n. Id

. at 21 5- 16

. Eve n

-6

-th ou gh th e un io n ha d no di sp ut e wit h it s pr im ary em pl oyer, th e Co ur t he ld th at t h e

un io n ha d vi ol at ed § 15 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B) be cau se it s co nd uc t fo rced All ie d, Cl ark , a nd

W at erm an to ceas e d oi ng bu si ne ss wit h o ne an ot he r an d th at di sr up ti on of bu si ne ss
rel at io ns hi ps was a co ns eq ue nc e th at th e u ni on for es aw. Id. at 21 8- 27

. 3

The al le ge d di sr

up ti on in th is cas e i s di ffer en t fro m th at whi ch oc cu rred in

All ie d In te rn at io na l. Pl ai nt iff s al le ge d th at th e pi ck et di sr up te d t h e Mar ke ts fro m
do in g bu si ne ss wit h th ei r cu st om ers an d su pp li ers , whi ch

, as ex pl ai ne d m or e fu ll y
be lo w, is th e type o f di sr up ti on res ul ti ng fro m an y pi ck et

.

Pl ai nt iff s al so ci te Mi am i Newsp ap er Pri nt in g Pres sm en , Loc al 46 (Kn i gh t
Newsp ap ers , In c.), 13 8 N.L.R.B. 13 46 (1 96 2)

, in su pp or t of th ei r arg um e n t t ha t

di sr up ti on of bu si ne ss be twee n ne ut ral pa rti es sa ti s f i es th e st at ut e’s ob

ject

req ui rem en t. The Mi am i Heral d an d th e Detr oi t Free Pres s were own ed by th e sa m e

co m pa ny, K ni gh t News pa pe rs . Id. at 13 47 . In co nn ect io n wi th it s d is pu te wit h t he

Mi am i Heral d, th e un io n pi ck et ed th e pr em is es of th e Detr oi t Free Pres s. Id

. at 13 49

. The Nati on al Lab or Rel at io ns Bo ard (Bo ard ) d e te rm in ed th at th e two ne wsp ap ers

were se pa rat e en ti ti es do in g “ on ly no m in al bu si ne ss wit h each ot he r

. ” I d

. at 13 47

. Th e Bo ard co nc lu de d th at be cau se th e un io n “ pi ck et ed Kni gh t, pu bl is he r of th e

Detr oi t Free Pres s, wit h th e ob ject of fo rci ng it to ceas e do in g bu si ne ss wit h it s

cu st om ers an d su pp li ers , it en ga ge d in un la wfu l se co nd ary act iv it y .” Id

. at 13 48

. The

Co ur t of Appe al s enfo rced th e Bo ard ’s or de r. Mi am i Newsp ap er Press m en ’s Loc al

No. 46 v. NLRB, 32 2 F.2 d 40 5 (D.C. Ci r. 19 63 ). It ag reed wit h th e Bo ard th at th e

st at ut e is no t li m it ed to in te rfer en ce in th e bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi p be twee n a se co nd ary

an d a pr im ary em

pl oyer, reas on in g th at if a se co nd ary em pl oyer “ co ul d wit h im

pu ni ty

Mo reo ve r, th e refu sa l to h a n d l e s h ip m en ts to or fro m a pa rti cu la r co un try 3

w o u l d l i k e l y v i o l a t e t h e s e p a r a t e , p r o h i b i t e d o b j e c t s e t f

o r t h i n § 15 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B)— “ fo rci ng or req ui rin g an y pe rs on to ce as e usi ng, se lli ng , ha nd li ng , tra ns po rti ng , or o th erwi se de al in g i n th e pr od uc ts of an y ot he r pr od uc er, p ro ces so r,

or m an uf act ur er”— whi le th e p ic ke ti ng he re d id no t.

-7

-be fo rced to su sp en d it s bu si ne ss rel at io ns wit h al l pe rs on s ot he r th an th e pr im ary

em pl oyer, th e ev il whi ch Co ng res s so ug ht to ge t at w ou ld be co m pl et e.” Id

. at 41 0;

se e al so Nat’l Mar it im e Uni on v. NLRB, 34 2 F.2 d 53 8, 54 3 (2 d Ci r. 19 65 ) (“ W he th er

th e st r i k i ng un io n is at war wit h a pr im ary em pl oyer an d pu ts da m ag in g eco no m ic

pr es su re o n a ne ut ral em

pl oyer wit h th e de si gn of in crea si ng th e eco no m ic pr es su re

on th e pr im ary em

pl oyer

. . . or is

, in st ead

, at war wit h an ot he r un io n an d

. . . is us in g
da m ag in g eco no m ic pr es su re on a ne ut ral em pl oyer to ach ie ve it s ob

jecti ve

. . . m ak es

no lo gi cal di ffer en ce in th e li gh t of th e cl ear pu rp os e an d in te nt io n o f C o n g r e ss to

co nf i n e t h e w a r fare to an area whi ch in cl ud es di rect act io n ag ai ns t th e pr in ci pa l

an ta go ni st

. . . .”).

Si m ila rl y , in Uni te d Mar in e Div is ion

, L oc al 333, In te rn at ion al L ongs hor em en ’ s

Ass ’n (New Yor k Sh ip pi ng Ass ’n), 10 7 N.L.R.B. 68 6 (1 95 4)

, th e Bo ard de te rm in ed

th at a un io n ha d act ed wit h th e req ui si te “ ceas e do in g bu si ne ss ” ob ject, de sp it e th e

fact th at th e un io n di d no t ai m to di sr up t bu si ne ss be twee n p r i m ary an d se co nd ary

em pl oyers. The un io n ha d a di sp ut e wit h co m pa ni es th at op erat ed tu gb oa ts at th e Po rt

of New Yor k, le ad i n g i t to de cl are a st rik e ag ai ns t th e co m pa ni es

. Id

. at 69 8.

Su bs eq ue nt ly, th e un io n pi ck et ed se ve ral of th e Po rt’s pi ers , de sp it e th e fact th at th e

tu gb oa t co m

pa ni es ha d ceas ed th ei r op erat io ns du e to th e st rik e, di sr up ti ng bu si ne ss
be twee n sh ip pi ng co m

pa ni es an d ot he r s u s i n g th e pi ers

. Id

. at 70 7. The Bo ard

co nc lu de d t ha t t he pi ck et in g was pro hi bi te d b y th e st at ut e. Id . at 7 09 -1 1.

Not wit hs ta nd in g th es e de ci si on s, we co nc lu de th a t t he ces sa ti on of bu si ne ss
be twee n th e Mar ke ts an d th ei r cu st om ers an d su pp li ers was no t an ob ject pr oh ib it ed
by § 15 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B). As t he Uni te d S ta te s Su pr em e Co ur t h as st at ed :

W ha te ve r m ay ha ve be en sa id in Co ng res s pr eced in g th e pa ss ag e of th e Taft -Hart le y Act co n c e r n i ng th e ev il of al l fo rm s of “ se co nd ary bo y co tt s” an d th e de si rab il it y of ou tl awin g th em , it is cl ear th at no su ch

swe ep in g pr oh ib it io n was in fact en act ed in § 8( b) (4 )(A). The se ct io n

-8

-do es no t sp eak ge ne ral ly of se co nd ary bo y co tt s. It de sc rib es an d

co nd em ns sp eci fic un io n c on du ct di rect ed to sp eci fic ob jecti ve s.

Loc al 19 76

, Uni te d Bh d. of Carp en te rs & Jo in ers v. NLRB (“ San d Doo r”), 35 7 U.S.

93

, 98 (1 95 8)

, su pe rs ed ed on ot he r gr ou nd s by st at ut e, Lan dr um -Gri ffi n Act, Pu b. L.

86 -2 57 , 7 3 St at . 5 19 , 5 42 -4 5 (1 95 9)

, as rec og ni ze d i n W oe lk e & Ro m ero Fram in g,

I n c

. v. NLRB, 45 6 U.S. 64 5, 65 2- 55 (1 98 2)

. The Mar ke ts ’ bu si ne ss wi t h t h e i r

cu st om ers an d su pp li ers m ay ha ve be en di sr up te d, bu t su ch a di sr up ti on wou ld be th e

res ul t of an y su cces sf

ul pi ck et in g of a se co nd ary em pl oyer. As th e Co ur t st at ed in th e

co nt ex t o f act io n a ga in st a pr im ary em pl oyer:

A st rik e, by it s ve ry na tu re, in co nv en ie nc es th os e who cu st om ari ly do
bu si ne ss wit h th e st ru ck em pl oyer. Mo reo ve r, an y acco m pa nyin g pi ck et in g o f th e em

pl oyer’s pr em is es is ne ces sa ril y de si gn ed to in du ce

an d en co ur ag e th ird pe rs on s to ceas e d oi ng bu si ne ss wit h th e pi ck et ed

em pl oyer. It do es no t fo ll ow, ho wev er, th at su ch pi ck et in g is th eref or e
pr os cri be d b y

Sect io n 8 (b )(4 )(A) o f th e Act

.

Loc al 76 1, In t’l Uni on of Elec

., Rad io

, & Mac h. W or ke rs v. NLRB, 36 6 U.S. 66 7,

67 5 (1 96 1) (q uo ti ng Oil W or ke rs In t’l Uni on , Loc al 34 6 (Pu re Oil Co .), 84 N.L.R.B.

31 5, 31 8 (1 94 9) ). Lik ewis e, al th ou gh a n y p ic ke t of a se co nd ary em pl oyer is li ke ly

to in te rfer e wit h it s bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi ps wit h it s cu st om ers an d su pp li ers , it do es no t

fo ll ow th at ev ery pi ck et of a se co nd ary em pl oyer is pr oh ib it ed by § 15 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B).

Had Co ng res s in te nd ed to ach ie ve su ch a res ul t, we do ub t th at it wou ld ha ve crea te d

a st at ut e pr oh ib it in g on ly co nd uc t wit h an ob ject of “ fo rci ng or req ui rin g an y pe rs on

. . . to ce as e d oi ng bu si ne ss wit h a ny oth er p ers on .”

-9

-Abs en t a “ ceas e do in g bu si ne ss ” ob ject be y on d th e di sr up ti on of rel at io ns hi ps
wit h cu st om ers an d su pp li ers , whi ch an y pi ck et ed bu si ne ss wou ld su ffer

, we ho ld th at

th e Uni on ’s con du ct in th is cas e d id no t v io la te th e st at ut e. 4

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

The is su e in th is ap pe al is whe th er th e Pl ai nt iff s’ co m pl ai nt ad eq ua te ly al le ge d

th at th e Uni on vi ol at ed § 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B) of th e Lab or Man ag em en t Rel at io ns Act, 29

U.S.C. § 15 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B), by pi ck et in g b us in es se s t ha t wer e n ot pri m ary em pl oyers

of th e Uni on ’s m em

be rs

. As th e co ur t ex pl ai ns , th e st at ut e m ak es it an un la wfu l la bo r

pr act ic e fo r a la bo r or ga ni zat io n “ to th reat en , co erce , or res tra in an y pe rs on en ga ge d

in co m m erce or in an in du st ry affe ct in g co m m erce ,” whe re an ob

ject t h e r e o f is

“ fo rci ng o r r e q u i rin g an y pe rs on to ceas e us in g, se ll in g, ha nd li ng , tra ns po rti ng , or

ot he rwis e de al in g in th e pr od uc ts of an y ot he r pr od uc er, pr oc es so r, or m an uf act ur er,

or to ceas e d oi ng bu si ne ss wit h a ny oth er p ers on .”

It is un di sp ut ed th at Pl ai nt iff s ad eq ua te ly al le ge d th at th e Uni on th reat en ed

,

c o e r c ed

, or res tra in ed th e bu si ne ss es kn own as th e Mar ke ts

, an d th at th e Mar ke t s

were no t a pr im ary em

pl oyer. The co nt es te d is su e is whe th er th e co m pl ai nt al le ge d

a fo rb id de n ob

ject. The co m

pl ai nt di d ad eq ua te ly al le ge th at an ob ject of th e Uni on ’s
pi ck et in g act iv it y was to fo rce th e Mar ke ts to ceas e do in g bu si ne ss wit h su pp li ers ,

co nt ract or s, an d p at ro ns of th e Mar ke ts

. The co ur t co nc lu de s th at th is al le ga ti on is

in su ffi ci en t as a m at te r of law.

Bec au se we co nc lu de th at th e Uni on ’s co nd uc t w a s no t pr oh ib it ed by 4 § 15 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B), we ne ed no t co ns id er th e Uni on ’s arg um en t th at it s no n- pi ck et in g

m ed ia act iv it ie s co ns ti tu te d c on du ct en ti tl ed to Fir st Am en dm en t p ro te ct io n.

-1 0-I n m

y vi ew, th e co m

pl ai nt ad eq ua te ly al le ge s a vi ol at io n of th e st at ut e. The

pr ov is io n is writ te n br o a d l y t o fo rb id act io ns ta ke n wit h an ob ject to fo rce “ an

y

pe rs on ” (h ere, t he Mark et s) to ceas e d oi ng bu si ne ss “ wit h an y ot he r pe rs on ” (h ere,

th e Mar ke ts ’ su pp li ers , co nt ract or s, an d pa tro ns ). As th e Su pr em e Co ur t on ce
ob se rv ed

, “ [d ]esp it e cri ti ci sm fro m Pres id en t Trum an as well as fro m so m e le gi sl at or s

th at th e se co nd ary bo y co tt pr ov is io n was to o swe ep in g, th e C o n g r e ss refu se d to

na rro w it s sc op e

. R e c o gn iz in g th at ‘ill eg al bo y co tt s ta ke m an y fo rm s,’ Co ng res s

in te nd ed it s pr oh ib it io n to reac h br oa dl y .” In t’l Lo ng sh or emen ’s Ass ’n v. All ie d In t’l

, In c. , 45 6 U.S. 21 2, 22 5 (1 98 2) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Al t h o u g h t h e st at ut e “ do es no t

sp eak ge ne ral ly of se co nd ary bo y co tt s,” an d “ de sc rib es an d co nd em ns sp eci fic un io n

co nd uc t di rect ed to sp eci fic ob jecti ve s,” an te

, at 9 (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

, th e

co m pl ai nt he re al le ge d sp eci fic pr oh ib it ed co nd uc t ta ke n wit h a sp eci fic pro hi bi te d

ob jecti ve

.

The co ur t de cl in es to ap pl y th e p la in lan gu ag e o f th e st at ut e b ecau se it co ul d

m ean th at ev ery pi ck et of a se co nd ary em pl oyer is pr oh ib it ed by § 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B). In 5

su pp or t of a na rro win g co ns t r u c t i o n , t he co ur t rel ie s on Lo ca l 76 1, In t’l Uni on of

Elec

., Rad io & Mac h. W or ker s v. NLRB

, 36 6 U.S. 66 7 (1 96 1)

. Tha t de ci si on , ho wev er, in vo lv ed pi ck et in g ag ai ns t a pr ima ry em pl oyer. The Co ur t sa id th at th e

pr ed eces so r to § 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B), fo rm er § 8( b) (4 )(A) of th e Nati on al Lab or Rel at io ns

The co ur t’s co nc ern is li ke ly ove rs ta te d. In fo rm at io na l or pro du ct pi ck et in g 5

m ig ht well be pe rm it te d if it is un de rta ke n wit h a pe rm is si bl e ob ject or m ot iv e. E.g.

, NLRB v. Fru it & Veg et ab le Pac ker s Lo ca l 76 0 ( Tr ee Fru it

s ), 37 7 U.S. 58

, 72 (1 96 4) ; La ne Cr an e Se rv
., In c. v. In t’l Bhd

. of Elec

. W or ker s, Lo ca l Uni on No

. 17 7

, 70 4 F.2 d

55 0, 55 3 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 83 ); NLRB v. Hol la nd Am. W af er Co

. , 68 3 F.2 d 13 5, 13 8 (6 th
Ci r. 19 82 ); NLRB v. Lo ca l 82 5, A, B, C, D, In t’l Uni on of Ope ra ti ng Eng ’r s , 65 9 F.2 d
37 9, 3 84 , 38 7 (3 d C ir. 1 98 1)

.

-1 1-Act, “ co ul d no t be li te ral ly co ns tru ed ; ot he rwis e it wou ld ba n m os t st rik es hi st or ic al ly

co ns id ered to be lawf

ul , so -cal le d pr ima ry act iv it y .” Id

. at 6 72 (em ph as is ad de d)

. 6

The rat io na le of Lo ca l 76 1 do es no t ap pl y to th is di sp ut e in vo lv in g a so -cal le d

se co nd ary em

pl oyer. As th e Nati on al Lab or Rel at io n s B o ard ob se rv ed whe n

ex am in in g th e sa m e st at ut e: “ Bu t th ou gh it is pl ai n th at p r i mar y act io n is to be

ex cep te d fro m th e sc op e of Sect io n 8( b) ( 4 ) ( A ), th ere is no th in g in th e le gi sl at iv e

hi st or y to warra nt a co nc lu si on th at wher e se co nd ary act iv it y is in vo lv ed

, Co ng res s

in te nd ed to dr aw a di st in ct io n be twee n di ffer en t ki nd s, so as to in cl ud e so m e bu t no t

ot he rs .” Lo ng

sh or emen
, ILA Lo ca l 33 3 ( N.Y

. Sh ip pi ng Ass ’n ), 10 7 N.L.R.B. 68 6, 71 1
(1 95 4)

. R at he r, th ou gh t th e Bo ard , “ [t]he re is ev id en ce

. . . t ha t Co ng res s, wit h th e

p ur po se of co nf

in in g th e area of eco no m ic co nf li ct in la bo r di sp ut es to d i r e c t

di sp ut an ts

, in te nd ed Sect io n 8( b) (4 )(A) to co nd em n al l act io n di rect ed ag ai ns t or
whi ch ha s th e effe ct of in

juri ng th e bu si ne ss of th ird pe rs on s no t in vo lv ed in th e ba si c
di sa gr eem en t gi vi ng ris e to th e co nf li ct .” Id

. ; ac co rd Lo ca l 27 2, Iro n W or ker s , 19 5

N.L.R.B. 10 63

, 10 63 (1 97 2) (co nc lu d i ng th at a un io n vi ol at ed § 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B) by
pi ck et in g a ne ut ral em

pl oyer “ wit h th e ob

ject of cau si ng a bu si ne ss d is ru pt io n
be twee n it an d th e su bc on tra ct or s on th e pr ojec t an d an y ot he r em pl oyer wit h who m

it was do in g bu si ne ss ,” bu t no t wit h th e pr im ary em pl oyer who ha d go ne ou t o f

bu si ne ss ).

The Su pr em e Co ur t in Tr ee Fru it s ag reed th at “ pi ck et in g whi ch pe rs ua de s th e

cu st om ers of a se co nd ary em pl oyer to st op al l tra di ng wit h hi m was

. . . to be ba rred ”

Lo ca l 76 1 ad dr es se d a pr ov is io n of th e Taft -Hart le y Act of 19 47 th at in cl ud ed 6

su bs t a n t i a ll y si m il ar la ng ua ge

. Se e 29 U.S.C. § 15 8( b) (4 )(A) (1 95 2) (m ak in g it an

un fai r la bo r pr act ic e to “ en co ur ag e th e em pl oyees o f a n y em

pl oyer” to en ga ge in a
st r i k e o r c o n c ert ed refu sa l whe re an ob ject th ereo f is “ fo rci ng or req ui rin g

. . . an y

em pl oyer or ot he r pe rs on

. . . to ceas e do in g bu si ne ss wit h an y ot he r pe rs on .”). The

cu rren t ve rs io n of § 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B) was en act ed in 19 59

. Lan dr um -Gri ffi n Act, Pu b.
L. 86 -2 57 , § 7 04 , 73 Sta t. 5 42 -4 5 (1 95 9)

.

-1 2-by th e st at ut e. 37 7 U.S. at 71

. The D.C. Ci rcu it ex pl ai ne d well why th e pr oh ib it io n

of § 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B) is no t li m it ed t o a c t io ns ai m ed at cau si ng a ne ut ral or se co nd ary

em pl oyer to ceas e do in g bu si ne ss wit h a “ pr im ary em pl oyer” whe n th e st at ut e refe rs

to “ an y pe rs on ”:

Alt ho u g h it is freq ue nt ly tru e th at th e ob ject of se co nd ary pi ck et in g is

to ob st ru ct de al in gs wit h th e pr im ary em pl oyer, Co ng res s di d no t so li m it it s la ng ua ge

. And a m om en t’s refl ect io n es ta bl is he s th at su ch a li m it at io n wou ld no t ha ve be en co ns on an t wit h t h e cen tra l le gi sl at iv e
pu rp os e. Tha t pu rp os e was to co nf in e la bo r co nf

li ct s to th e em

pl oyer in
who se la bo r rel at io ns th e co nf li ct ha d ari se n, a n d t o wall of f th e
pr es su res ge ne rat ed by th at co nf li ct fro m un al li ed em

pl oyers. If on e of
th e la tt er co ul d wit h im

pu ni ty be fo rced to su sp en d it s bu si ne ss rel at io ns wit h al l pe rs on s ot he r th an th e pr im ary e mp l o ye r , th e ev il whi ch
Co ng res s so ug ht to ge t at wou ld be co mp l e t e

. Man y se co nd ary

em pl oyers wou ld ha ve no oc cas io n to ha ve co m m erci al in te rco ur se wit h
th e pr im ary em

pl oyers. Is it to be su pp os ed th at Co ng res s in te nd ed th at th ei r bu si ne ss e s co ul d be st op pe d by se co nd ary pr es su res si m pl y be cau se of t hi s ci rcu m st an ce? W e th in k n ot [.]

Mia mi News

pa pe r Pres sme n’

s Loca l No. 46 v. NLRB , 32 2 F .2d 40 5, 41 0 (D.C. Ci r.

19 63 ); ac co rd

Na t’l Mar . Uni on v. NLRB , 34 6 F .2d 41 1, 4 17 -1 8 (D.C . Cir . 19 65 ).

The vi ol at io n al le ge d he re co m es wit hi n th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of § 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B).

Ju di ci al ly crea te d li m it at io ns on th e pl ai n la ng ua ge th at av oi d ba nn in g “ m os t st rik es

hi st or ic al ly co ns id ered to be la wfu l, so -cal le d pr im ary act iv it y ,” Lo ca l 76 1

, 36 6 U.S.

at 67 2, are no t ap pl ic ab le to th is di sp ut e. I wou ld th eref or e rev ers e th e jud gm en t of

th e d is tri ct co ur t an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 3-