Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-05-09
Appeals Court
~ n - ~
UphoIds Union
On Hot Cargo
BY HOWARD L. DUTKIN

The U. S. Court of Appeals
today upheld the "hot cargo"l
clause in some union contracts
whereby employees may refuse to
handle "Struck" material.
The court held, in a split 2-1l
opinion, that such a clause does
not violate secondary boycott
provisions of the Taft Hartley
Act.
The act makes it illegal for
labor unions to induce employees
to refuse to handle goods where
the object is to force an employer
to join any laboy or employer
organization or to cease dealing
in the products of any other
producer.
Today's case involved an Okla
homa City local Of the Transfers
Union: a local of the Machinists
Union; the American Iron and
Machine Works Co.. and a num-
UcI VI CdTTIcIS.
During a 1854 strike of the
MachinistS against American
Iron. the Transfers Union, after
trucks were picketed by the Ma
chinists. instructed Teamster
members not to handle the
struck goods.
Truckers Bid Rejected
Employers Of the Transfers
requested that the goods be han
died, but the Teamsters Union
refused.
The National Labor Relations
Board ordered them to cease
their activities insofar as the
alleged secondary boycott was
concerned.
The unions appealed to the
court. The Transfers cited the
"hot cargo" clause in their con-
tract.
In the majority opinion today,
the appellate court declared:
1T cannot be argued that the
actions Of Transfers constituted
a sympathy strike or an illegal
boycott. The actions taken might
have been so regarded had their
been no hot cargo clause. In
sympathy strikes or illegal boy
colts the employees are innocent
victims of disputes with which
they are not concerned. But
where such a clause exists &
different situation arises. The
secondary employer has con-
sented knowingly and in adj
vance. to the refusal of its en-
ployes to handle goods of the
original employer"
The majority opinion was writ
ten by Judge Walter M. Bastian
with the concurrence Of Judge
George T. Washington. Judge
E. Barrett Prettyman dissented.
Dissenting Opinion
In his dissent. the Judge de-
clared that even If an employer
agreed to a ''hot cargo" contract
but thereafter refuses to abide
by his agreement and directs
his employees to handle the
goods. and his employees refuse
to do so. there is a strike or re-
fusal to work."
He declared "such a strike +. !.
where an object is to force the
employer to cease transporting
the products of another pro-
ducer. is forbidden by the CTaft-
Hartley statute" Judge Pretty
man held that employees may
not violate the statute in order
to enforce their contract.
The court set aside the NLRB
oruer as to the Teamsters. But it
upheld the order as to the Ma
chinists.
The latter union were held not
to be parties to the hot cargo
contract between the Transfers
and the carriers and so were not
protected. Judge Prettyman
agreed with the results of this
conclusion adding that since 81
think the hot cargo clause could
not be enforced by a strike, that
it could not have been so en-
forced by the Machinists even
If they had been parties to the
contract"
Judge Washington would have
reversed the boards ruling as to
the Machinists as well as the
Transfers.