Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/321-f-2d-612-595669998
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:53:48+00:00

Document:
321 F.2d 612 (5th Cir. 1963), 18748, Burr v. N. L. R. B.
Docket Nº: 18748, 19080, 19162.
UNITED WHOLESALE AND WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 261, RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, AFL-CIO, Respondent.
Mark L. Taliaferro, C. V. Stelzenmuller, Birmingham, Ala., for Samuel H. Burr and Perfection Mattress & Spring Co.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Melvin J. Welles, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for N.L.R.B.
Jerome A. Cooper, Birmingham, Ala., Michael H. Gottesman, David E. Feller, Jerry D. Anker, Washington D.C., for the Union.
violation of § 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii). 2 We also hold that in some particulars the order should be made more precise. The result is that we sustain the Board's petition to enforce, Perfection's petition to reverse the order denying relief under § (i) and to make the order more specific, and deny the Union's petition to set aside the order adjudging a violation of § (ii). The case has a long and tortuous history. Begun in 1958 and now in its fifth year after three decisions by the Labor Board and two by Courts of Appeals, it still has life thanks, in no small measure, to intervening legislative changes. Perfection 3 is the primary employer. Subsequent to the designation of the Union 4 as the bargaining representative of its employees, Perfection and the Union engaged in extensive bargaining negotiations which lasted from July to October 1958. On October 14, 1958, the Union called a strike in support of its demands.
On the basis of charges filed by Perfection, the Board issued a complaint alleging violations by the Union of § 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). The parties waived a hearing and agreed to submit the case to the Board on stipulated facts which also included the entire record in the original § 10(l) injunction proceeding.
On December 28, 1960, the Board issued its order, 129 NLRB 1014, holding that the 1960 picketing violated both §§ (i) and (ii). Perfection petitioned for review under § 10(e) on the ground that the provisions of the cease and desist order, stated as they were in statutory language, were too vague and indefinite upon which to secure effective compliance through contempt or other coercive sanctions. 5 On August 17, 1961, the Board filed a motion in this Court for leave to modify its decision on the ground that by subsequent decision after a change of its membership the Board had in a subsequent case 6 held that there was no (i) violation. We denied the motion to modify but remanded the proceedings to the Board for limited reconsideration and filing of an amended or supplemental order meanwhile retaining jurisdiction of the subject matter. Following this, on December 4, 1961, the Board issued a supplemental decision and amended order finding no § (i) violation. 134 NLRB 99. The result is that the order is now confined to a violation of § (ii). The Board and Perfection seek enforcement of that order. The Union seeks denial of enforcement. Perfection seeks, in effect, a reinstatement of the finding of a § (i) violation and both Board and Union oppose this. Perfection, opposed by both Board and Union, further attacks the vagueness of the order as to either one or both of § (i) and (ii).
By stipulation the record upon which the Board acted included the testimony in the 1958 § 10(l) injunction proceedings. This record showed that Union representatives had stated in various ways to managers of a number of retail furniture stores that they were going to 'picket the stores and try to stop the trucks that was coming in from Perfection.' When a store manager declined to cease purchasing Perfection merchandise, pickets shortly appeared. At one store, due to confusion in similar names, the pickets were withdrawn when the Union was assured that Perfection merchandise would not be sold. This assurance was enough for the Union to conclude that the retailer's conduct would not have 'violated the picket line.' Further, at one store (Willoughby) pickets loudly shouted about 'junk in the (show) window that is made by scab labor' and when Willoughby remonstrated about this, the picket became harsh and impudent resulting in a further exchange of harsh words between the picket and another employee. On another occasion at Willoughby's, there was repeated inquiry as to the home address of a servant of Willoughby's as she crossed the picket line. On another occasion at Ross Black Furniture Company, pickets became loud and boisterous shouting several times they 'would never cross a picket line, even to pay a bill, it's a good excuse not to pay it.' These statements were made in the hearing of one or more employees.
Though the evidence did not show any picketing of delivery entrances as such, or actual interference with deliveries, the record is clear that the presence of the pickets was known to all employees. Some employees of the retail stores regularly left before the pickets. Employees could see the picket signs through windows and doors. Many employees customarily went in and out of the front entrances of the stores all throughout the day for coffee, lunch, errands and the like. Many came to and left work customarily through the front entrances.

References: v. 
 V. 
 § 8
 § 8
 § 10
 § 10
 § 10