Holdings of Kentov ex rel. NLRB v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Association Local 15, AFL-CIO
Following a union organized picketing process involving a secondary boycott on March 17, 2004, a hospital submitted an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRA, claiming that the union's conduct encompassed an unlawful secondary boycott, in violation of section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(ii)(B). The claim encompassed specific activity that detoured secondary employers patients and visitors with items interpreted as forcing or requiring the hospital to stop facilitating business with outside contractors in which the union has a primary labor dispute.
On July 27, 2004, the NLRB filed petition, asking for an interim injunction pursuant to section 10(l) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 160(l), regarding the decisions in relation to the union. The district court accepted the petition, finding cause to believe that the union had perpetuated unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) .
Citing DeBartolo, 485 U.S. at 579-80, 108 S.Ct. 1392, the Supreme Court made it clear that coercion within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) is not protected by the First Amendment. Furthermore, the injunction is in accordance with longstanding …show more content…
The Sheet Metal Workers’ International Associates utilized a funeral procession. The union members walking back and forth was seen as picketers, which according to NLRA is a violation. However, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America did a more peaceful display by displaying banners facing the roadway and away from the secondary boycott places of business. They did not block access to businesses or to the sidewalks. Additionally, this case was seen as not a violation due to the fact their sign was stationary. Lastly, secondary boycotts can be utilized by a union but it depends on how they protest as long as they are not seen as coercive in the eyes of the