United Steelworkers Of America, Afl-Cio-Clc

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1988

288 N.L.R.B. 1190 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

1190 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC
and Pet, Incorporated. Case 14-CC-1250-1
May 31, 1988
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
BABSON AND CRACRAFT
On August 10, 1979, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued a Decision and Order in this
proceeding. 1 The Board found that the handbilling
and other nonpicketing publicity of the United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC (the
Union or the Respondent), urging a total consumer
boycott of the products and services of Pet, Incor-
porated (the Charging Party or Pet) and its divi-
sions and subsidiaries 2 in furtherance of the Union's
primary dispute with Hussmann Refrigerator Com-
pany (Hussmann), a wholly owned subsidiary of
Pet, is protected by the publicity proviso of Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act, and that the com-
plaint should therefore be dismissed. In reaching
this result, the Board did not rule on the issues of
whether Pet and its divisions and subsidiaries are
"neutral" persons in the controversy between
Hussmann and the Union for the purpose of Sec-
tion 8(b)(4), whether the Union's publicity consti-
tuted "coercion" or "restraint" and therefore fell
within the prohibition of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), or
whether a finding that the Union's publicity was
not protected by the publicity proviso would con-
flict with the first amendment to the Constitution.
By order dated January 30, 1981, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit re-
jected3 as "unreasonable" the Board's finding that
Hussmann is a producer of all Pet enterprises'
products in the sense that "produced" is used in
the publicity proviso. It therefore reversed and re-
manded the unresolved issues4 to the Board for
consideration.5
1 244 NLRB 96
2 The divisions and subsidiaries boycotted by the Union include Pet
Dairy Products; Whitman's Chocolates; Pet Frozen Foods; Miladey's,
Reeses Finer Foods; Funsten Nuts, Stuckey's, Inc ; Southland Canning
and Packing Company, Inc , Violet Packing Company, Inc ; and Moun-
tain Pass Canning Company. The Union also boycotted the following_
products of Pet's grocery products division. Compliment Cooking
Sauces, Heartland 'Cereal, Northland Syrup, Pet Evaporated Milk, Sego
Diet Food, Sego Spoon Up, and Musselman Fruit Products.
'Pet, Inc. v. NLRB, 641 F.2d 545.
4 On April 3, 1981, the Eighth Circuit denied the petitions of the
Board and the Union for a rehearing en bane, Judges Heaney and
McMillian dissentmg
5 The Charging Party has requested oral argument The request is
denied as the record and briefs adequately present the issues and the posi-
tions of the parties
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
On April 20, 1988, the Supreme Court issued its
decision in Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida
Gulf Coast Building Trades Council (DeBartolo),6
holding that Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act does
not proscribe peaceful handbilling and other non-
picketing publicity urging a total consumer boycott
of neutral employers. That decision is controlling
here and requires that we dismiss the complaint.
The stipulated facts of this case, set forth in the
decisions of the Board and the Court, bear repeat-
ing at this juncture. Pet is a large, diversified con-
glomerate enterprise with plants and retail stores
located throughout the United States. It currently
has 27 operating divisions, each engaging in sepa-
rate and distinct lines of business. A good part of
Pet's business is in the area of the manufacture of
food products. Pet also has nonfood operations that
include plastics and label manufacturing, public
warehousing and distribution, Stuckey's, and 905
stores.
Hussmann, a wholly owned subsidiary of Pet,
manufactures commercial refrigeration equipment,
display cases, shelving, checkout counters, and
other commercial and industrial equipment It has a
plant in Bridgeton, Missouri, where the Union rep-
resents approximately 1500 employees. The Union
does not represent any employees of Pet or its
other subsidiaries or any other Hussmann employ-
ees.
When the collective-bargaining agreement cover-
ing the Bridgeton employees expired on May 1,
1977, the Union commenced an economic strike.
On October 21, 1977, the Union's president an-
nounced at a press conference in the St. Louis area
that, in support of the strike at the Bridgeton plant,
he was calling for a "national boycott by our 1.4
million member union of Pet, Inc., food products,
their retail store outlets, and commercial refrigera-
tion equipment."
Beginning on November 9, 1977, the Union
placed advertisements in local newspapers, advising
the public of the Union's strike against Hussmann's
Bridgeton plant, noting that Hussmann is owned by
Pet, and requesting the public to boycott Stuckey's
and 905, and to refuse to buy any product of Pet.
The advertisements listed 17 products of Pet.
In October and November 1977 the Union dis-
tributed handbills in the St. Louis area. The hand-
bills contained the same message as the newspaper
advertisements. The Union issued boycott instruc-
tions, which provided that no boycott material
6 128 LRRM 2001
288 NLRB No. 133
STEELWORKERS (PET, INC.) 1191
should be distributed in the vicinity of a retail es-
tablishment owned by Pet or selling Pet products.
Further, no one was to interfere with the entrance
or exit of workers or others under any• circum-
stances. The handbilling activity conformed to
these instructions at all times. All the handbining
was orderly and peaceful and did not involve any
picketing or patrolling.
Applying DeBartolo, we find that even if Pet and
its divisions and subsidiaries are neutrals for the
purpose of Section 8(b)(4), the Union did not
engage in prohibited conduct. The Union an-
nounced its boycott through newspaper advertise-
ments, leafletting, and other media. The handbilling
was of the same nature as that conducted by the
union in DeBartolo. There was no violence, picket-
ing, or patrolling, and only an attempt to persuade
customers not to buy products of Pet or its divi-
sions or subsidiaries. The Union's handbills and
other nonpicketing publicity truthfully revealed the
existence of a labor dispute and urged potential
customers of the alleged neutrals to follow a
wholly legal course of action, namely, not to pa-
tronize Pet or its divisions or subsidiaries. They ad-
vised the public of the Union's strike against the
Hussmann Bridgeton plant and urged a public boy-
cott of the products of Pet and its divisions and
subsidiaries. Such appeals are not coercive.
We therefore find that the Union's consumer
boycott did not violate Section 8(b)(4). According-
ly, we shall dismiss the complaint.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.