United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board

PETITIONER: United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO
RESPONDENT: National Labor Relations Board
LOCATION: Cumberland Hospital

DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1962-1965)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

CITATION: 376 US 492 (1964)
ARGUED: Feb 19, 1964
DECIDED: Mar 23, 1964

Facts of the case


Media for United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - February 19, 1964 in United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board

Earl Warren:

No.89, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al., Petitioners, versus National Labor Relations Board.

Mr. Anker.

Jerry D. Anker:

Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.

This case like the two which have just been argued also arises under Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Taft-Hartley Act as amended.

The questions presented in this case, however, are quite different from those that are involved in the cases which you have just heard.

We're not concerned here with consumer picketing nor with appeals to high level supervisory employees.

Nor are we particularly concerned with the 1959 Amendments to the Act.

The conduct that's involved in this case is the more traditional union conduct of appealing to employees to withhold services, there's no dispute about that.

And the question is whether the particular appeal in this case is prohibited by 8(b)(4)(B) or is not.

Specifically, the question presented in this case is this, may a union which is on strike at an industrial plant, picket one of the entrances to the that plant which is used by a railroad to provide pickup and delivery services at that plant for the purpose of the preventing the railroad from performing those services.

I will say that there is one fact in this case which it had in common with all the others although it's often said that Section 8(b)(4) was intended to protect neutral employers, not the employer which whom the union is engaged in a lawful dispute.

But I think it's significant though, obviously not controlling that in each of the three cases that -- before the Court today, the employer who's complaining that's he's being -- that the complaining of a violation is the primary employer and yet in each case, the primary employer saying, "We are complaining because you were hurrying, that isn't neutral."

The strike in this case was against Carrier Corporation which is one of the respondents here.At the large plant that company has in Syracuse, New York.

In connection with that strike, the union picketed all the various inferences engaged to the plant but the dispute concerns only to picketing which took place at one particular gate.

A photograph of that gate appears on page 305 of the record.

Its general counsel's exhibit number two and I believe it's easier to visualize the -- what exactly is involved in that case if we look at that photograph.

The chain-linked fence which you see in that picture is the fence which surrounds the main Carrier property.

At one time, Carrier owned all of the real estate which is with -- within that fence.You can see the Carrier plant off the left just behind that clump of trees.

Some years before this particular case arose, Carrier conveyed to the New York Central Railroad, a 35-foot strip along the southern part of that property, just inside this fence on which these railroad tracks run, you'll see the railroad tracks there on the photograph.

Now, those particular tracks are used for two purposes.

As you see, just inside the gate they divide into two-fourths.

The right hand railroad track is used to provide pickup and delivery service not to Carrier but to other -- two or three other industrial plants which are in the immediate vicinity adjoining Carrier.

Potter Stewart:

Right and within the -- within the area enclosed by the gate?

Jerry D. Anker:

No, not within the fence, Your Honor, further down.

You can see it in this picture.

There are other gates, other little spur tracks off of that right hand track and other gates through which those tracks run.

Potter Stewart:

Just run through another gate?

Jerry D. Anker:

That's correct.

Potter Stewart:

Now in the -- the gate itself which is visible on the foreground of a -- exhibit number two at page 305, does that gate belong to the New York Central?

Jerry D. Anker:

I suppose the gate does, that's right because they own the piece of real estate on which gate is.