Case Name: GENERAL DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 886, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent; LOCAL 850, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1957-05-09
Citations: 247 F.2d 71
Docket Number: Nos. 13394, 13406
Parties: GENERAL DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 886, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. LOCAL 850, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
Judges: Before Prettyman, Washington and Bastían, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 247
Pages: 71–78

Head Matter:
GENERAL DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 886, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. LOCAL 850, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
Nos. 13394, 13406.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Jan. 11, 1957.
Decided May 9, 1957.
Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D. C., for petitioner Gen. Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local No. 886.
Mr. Louis P. Poulton, Pasadena, Md., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Maryland, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. Plato E. Papps, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioner Internat. Assn, of Machinists, Local No. 850.
Mr. Norton J. Come, Atty., N. L. R. B., with whom Mr. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., was on the brief, for respondent.
Before Prettyman, Washington and Bastían, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
BASTIAN, Circuit Judge.
These cases involve the issue as to whether or not the so-called "hot cargo" clause in a labor contract, wherein an employer agrees that his employees shall not be required to handle struck goods, is enforceable by the union party thereto, and whether it (the hot cargo clause) may be used as an excuse by a union on strike to conduct secondary picketing.
The facts found by the Trial Examiner and the majority of the National Labor Relations Board are substantially as follows:
Local 850, International Association of Machinists (hereinafter called Machinists) became involved in an economic strike with the American Iron & Machine Works Company (hereinafter called American Iron) in September 1954. The strike lasted a little over a month, terminating upon the execution of a new collective bargaining agreement. During the course of the strike the Machinists picketed the three plants of their employer. They also picketed trucks of American Iron when they appeared at the loading platforms of certain carriers. Representatives of General Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 886 (hereinafter called Teamsters) instructed the unloading personnel of the carriers that, under the terms of the hot cargo clause of the contract between Teamsters and the carriers, the employees were not to handle American Iron goods since they were struck goods. Certain of the carriers, despite the hot cargo clause, requested their employees to handle American Iron goods, whereupon Teamsters urged its members employed by those carriers to refuse to handle these goods. One carrier-employer took no action and did not request his employees to unload.
On charges filed by American Iron, the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter called the Board) issued complaints, filed two days after the new contract between American Iron and Teamsters was signed, against both Teamsters and Machinists by reason of the alleged violation of Section 8(b) (4) (A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. A temporary injunction applied for by the Board was denied by the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
The complaints of the Board were referred to a Trial Examiner and, after a preliminary report and consideration of the exceptions thereto, the Board, by a majority vote, two of the five members dissenting, directed that Machinists and Teamsters cease and desist from inducing or encouraging the employees of the carriers, or any other employer, to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to work on or handle freight consigned to or received from American Iron, or any other employer, where an object thereof was to force or require any employer or person to cease doing business with American Iron. Two of the three members of the majority of the Board were of opinion that the hot cargo clause was valid; the third member, concurring in the result of the Board's order, was of opinion that the clause was illegal and did violence to Section 8(b) (4) (A). The two Board members comprising the majority held in effect that, even assuming that the Act itself does not prohibit the execution of a "hot cargo" clause, nevertheless, the Act does preclude enforcement of such a clause by appeals to employees.
From the order of the Board, Teamsters and Machinists filed these petitions asking this court to review and set aside the order; and, in its answer to the petitions, the Board requested that its order be enforced.
I
Appeal in No. 13,394
Petition of General Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local No. 886
We agree with the four members of the Board who held that the hot cargo clause of the contract was not violative of the provisions of Section 8(b) (4) (A) of" the Act. This seems also to have been held by the Second Circuit in the so-called Conway ease. The majority of the Board held, following Sand Door & Plywood Co., 113 N.L.R.B. No. 123, that any direct appeal to employees by a union to engage in a strike or concerted refusal to handle a product is proscribed by the Act when one of the objectives set forth in Section 8(b) (4) (A) is present. See note 3, supra.
With this we disagree. If the hot cargo clause is not violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A), and we think it is not, such a ruling would in practical effect render nugatory the clause itself and would leave the employees without adequate remedy. The Board urges that Section 8 (b) (4) (A) was enacted for.the benefit of the public. We think that, although the public is involved, this section has for its purpose the protection of those persons who might be subjected to a secondary boycott, which is proscribed by the section.
We are not impressed with the argument that other adequate remedies are open to the employees of the union. Such remedies as are suggested by the Board seem to us to be totally inadequate and not such as are contemplated by the agreement by the employer in the hot cargo clause.
Here the Teamsters' conduct only consisted of urging the employees of the carriers not to handle freight from a company which they considered unfair. This was exactly what the carriers had agreed their employees would not be required to do. If an employer may lawfully agree that its employees will not be required to handle freight from a struck company, and such a situation arises, it is hard to see how it can be said that, simply because the employees do what they have the right to do, there was a strike or refusal to work. Nor can it be said that there was a "forcing" or requiring of an employer to cease doing business with another person, because the employer was only being compelled to live up to its own voluntary contract entered into in advance of the happening.
It cannot be argued that the actions of Teamsters constituted a sympathy, strike or an illegal boycott. The actions taken might have been so regarded had there been no hot cargo clause. In sympathy strikes or illegal boycotts the employers are innocent victims of disputes with which they are not concerned. But where such a clause exists a different situation arises. The secondary employer has consented, knowingly and in advance, to the refusal of its employees to handle goods of the original employer.
It seems to us that the purpose of Section 8(b) (4) (A) is to prevent injury to secondary employers in the disputes of others in which the secondary employers are not involved, and to prevent the forcing of such employers to stop doing business with a third person. But, in cases like this one, the secondary employer has agreed, as part of its bargaining contract with its own union, not to handle goods of an unfair employer; and it would seem that Teamsters employed the only effective means in its power to enforce the agreement.
I am authorized to state that Circuit Judge Washington agrees with the foregoing treatment of No. 13,394. He is filing an additional statement.
Circuit Judge Prettyman dissents for reasons which he will state separately.
The Board's order as to Teamsters will be set aside.
II
Appeal in No. 13,406
Petition of Local 850, International Association of Machinists
Machinists urge a number of objections to the Board's findings and order. Among them is that the Board erred in not holding that Teamsters' conduct was protected activity and, accordingly, Machinists' conduct in bringing the dispute to the knowledge of the members of the Teamsters' Union was not in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (A).
Machinists were not parties to the contract between the carriers and Teamsters. But they contend that, since Teamsters and the carriers were parties to a contract containing the hot cargo clause, an essential element to a finding of violation of the Act is missing. Their position is that the handling of American Iron freight (struck goods) by the employees of the carriers was taken out of the scope of their employment by the hot cargo clause and, therefore, Machinists could induce carrier employees to exercise their contract right not to handle struck goods. Machinists urge that, since Teamsters were free to honor Machinists' ambulatory picket line, their activity would not constitute encouragement or inducement of Teamsters to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to handle the goods of another employer.
We agree with the Trial Examiner and the Boárd majority that the conduct of Machinists must be evaluated independently of that of Teamsters and that the defenses available to Teamsters are not automatically available to Machinists. The latter are neither parties nor third party beneficiaries of the Teamsters-carrier contract.
The Trial Examiner and the Board majority found that after picketing of American Iron trucks began, while the trucks were on the premises of the carriers, dock employees of at least some of the carriers continued to handle American Iron products. Indeed, in some instances there were protests when supervisory employees attempted to move merchandise which would ordinarily be moved by the dock employees who were members of Teamsters. The Board found further that in most instances the dock employees continued to handle American Iron freight until instructed by representatives of their union not to do so.
Here, as above stated, Machinists had no connection with the contract containing the hot cargo clause and Teamsters' contract could not constitute the basis for a defense by Machinists.
We have examined the other contentions of Machinists, among them that the Board erred in not finding that the controversy was moot because the complaint was filed after the strike between Machinists and American Iron had been settled by execution of a new contract. A reading of the Act would indicate that a complaint may be filed where the party charged "has engaged in or is engaging" in unfair labor practices. There can be no doubt that orders dealing with unfair labor practices have preventive as well as remedial effects.
Machinists also contend that their picketing at the carriers' premises was legitimate primary activity aimed only at American Iron employees. This contention is foreclosed by the fact that the findings of the Board were based upon disputed facts; and there is substantial evidence to sustain the findings of the Board. '
. The "hot cargo" clause in question reads: " (a) The Union and the Employer agree that it shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement for any employee or Union member covered herein to refuse to cross a picket line or to refuse to enter upon the premises of an Employer if such refusal does not congtitute a violation of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. (b) Members of the Union shall not be allowed to handle or haul freight to or from an unfair company, provided, this is not a violation of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947."
. 61 Stat. 141 (1947): "(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents (4) to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is: (A), forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person to join any labor or employer organization or any employer or other person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person 29 U.S. C.A. § 158(b) (4) (A).
. The exact language of the Board's ruling is as follows: " any direct appeal to employees by a union to engage in a strike or concerted refusal to handle a product is proscribed by the Act when one of the objectives set forth in Section 8(b) (4) (A) is present. Thus, while Section 8(b) (4) (A) does not forbid the execution of a hot cargo clause or a union's enforcement thereof by appeals to the employer to honor his contract, the Act does, in our opinion, preclude enforcement of such clause by appeals to employees, and this is so whether or not the employer acquiesces in the union's demand that the employees refuse to handle 'hot' goods. Accordingly, in affirming the Trial Examiner, we do not find it necessary to rely as he did, on the fact that the secondary employers herein did not acquiesce in the refusal of their employees to handle American Iron's freight. In our view, it is sufficient that there was direct inducement of such employees by Teamsters not to handle such freight, with an object of forcing the secondary employers to cease dealing with American Iron."
. Rabouin v. National Labor Relations Board,' 2 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 906, 912. There the court said: "The union cannot have committed an unfair labor practice under this section in regard to those employers who refused to handle Rabouin's shipments under the terms of the area agreement provision relating to cargo shipped by struck employers. Consent in advance to honor a hot cargo clause is not the product of the un-' ion's 'forcing or requiring any employer to cease doing business with any other person.' § 8(b) (4) (A)." See also Meier & Pohlmann Furniture Co. v. Gibbons, 8 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 296; Id., .D.C.1953, 113 F.Supp. 409; Madden v. Local 442, D.C.W.D.Wis.1953, 114 F.Supp. 932.