RESPONDENT: Fruit & Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen, Local 760
LOCATION: Cumberland Hospital
DOCKET NO.: 88
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1962-1965)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
CITATION: 377 US 58 (1964)
ARGUED: Feb 18, 1964 / Feb 19, 1964
DECIDED: Apr 20, 1964
Facts of the case
Media for National Labor Relations Board v. Fruit & Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen, Local 760Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - February 19, 1964 in National Labor Relations Board v. Fruit & Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen, Local 760
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - February 18, 1964 in National Labor Relations Board v. Fruit & Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen, Local 760
Number 88, National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, versus Fruit and Vegetable Packers and Warehousemen, Local 760, et al.
Mr. Solicitor General.
Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.
This is one of two cases that are here on certiorari to review judgments of the two courts of appeals involving the application of the recent amendments of-- to the National Labor Relations Act to Union concerted activities at retail stores independently on selling the goods of an employer produced by an employer who has been engaged and is engaged in a labor dispute with the Union.
In the instant case, the question is whether it is an unfair labor practice for the Union to picket the retail store with signs asking consumers not to purchase a product made by another employer, in this case several hundred miles away, with whom the Union had a labor dispute.
In the case next to be argued, the Servette case, the question is whether the Union may request the manager of one of the retail stores not to purchase from the primary employer, as we call him, the one with whom it has the dispute.
And, second, if it refuses, whether the Union may pass out hand bills, otherwise, without picketing, request the consumers not to purchase those products.
We say that the case involving picketing does involve an unfair labor practice and that the case involving the request directed to the managers of the store and to the passing out hand bills and other forms of publicity does not involve an unfair labor practice.
That rather nice distinction results, we contend, from the language of the statute and is not one simply-- and this one made by Congress rather than one to be made independently.
What's your definition of picketing, in other words, I have in mind, why is the standing in front of the entrance of the store and passing out hand bills, why isn't that picketing?
If there's no placard, that would not, I think, have been regarded as picketing.
Is that-- that's the deposited-- dispositive factor, is it, whether a man has a sign on him like a signage man--
That seems to have been what Congress regarded as dispositive, whether there was patrolling with the sign.
Well, let's say there's patrolling and handing out signs-- handing out hand --
I would say-- I would say it wasn't a sign, but if you wish to call it a sign --
I would-- well, if it's patrolling and handing out-- there might be room for argument as to which it is.
Well, I --
We don't have that in this case.
Well, that --
I recognized it's a --
I want to --
-- a closed line and, as the statute has drawn, since it speaks of publicity other than picketing --
And it doesn't define picketing, does it?
And it does not define picketing.
And your definition of picketing is, if the man had signs on them, is that it?
Or that they are carrying a placard --
Or that they're carrying.
There were various references in the debate to ambulatory picketing and that that was what was forbidden.