National Labor Relations Board v. Enterprise Association of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine & General Pipefitters of New York and Vicinity, Local Union No. 638

PETITIONER: National Labor Relations Board
RESPONDENT: Enterprise Association of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine & General Pipefitters of New York and Vicinity, Local Union No. 638
LOCATION: United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

DOCKET NO.: 75-777
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

CITATION: 429 US 507 (1977)
ARGUED: Oct 06, 1976
DECIDED: Feb 22, 1977

ADVOCATES:
Laurence Stephen Gold - for respondent
Norton J. Come - for petitioner

Facts of the case

Question

Media for National Labor Relations Board v. Enterprise Association of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine & General Pipefitters of New York and Vicinity, Local Union No. 638

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 06, 1976 in National Labor Relations Board v. Enterprise Association of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine & General Pipefitters of New York and Vicinity, Local Union No. 638

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - February 22, 1977 in National Labor Relations Board v. Enterprise Association of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Machine & General Pipefitters of New York and Vicinity, Local Union No. 638

Warren E. Burger:

The judgment and opinion of the Court in 75-777, the National Labor Relations Board against Enterprise Association will be announced by Mr. Justice White and he will also announce 75-1510, Weatherford against Bursey.

Byron R. White:

The enterprise case is here from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

It involves a labor dispute arising out of the refusal of certain unionized steel cutters to install pre-fitted and pre-piped air-conditioning units at a construction site.

The steam fitters claimed that the -- that the use of these of air conditioners violated a provision of the collective bargaining contract.

The issue in the case is whether the work stoppage was a secondary boycott in an unfair labor practice under 8(b) -- 4(b) of the National Labor Relations Act.

The National Labor Relations Board held that it was an unfair labor practice.

The Court of Appeal disagreed and set aside the order because we agree with the National Labor Relations Board rather than the Court of Appeals will reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Mr. Justice Brennan joined by Mr. Justice Marshall had filed a dissenting opinion.

The opinion is also adjoined in substantial part by Mr. Justice Stewart who has also filed a dissenting opinion.