## Facts

- Local Union No. 710 represented truck drivers employed by major meat packers in the Chicago area who performed local deliveries of meat products.
- For roughly 20 years, the packers and the union operated under an arrangement in which Chicago-area deliveries were made by the packers using their own equipment and union-represented drivers.
- In the late 1950s, major packers moved significant processing operations outside Chicago, changing distribution methods and reducing demand for Chicago-based union drivers.
- To preserve or recapture delivery work, the union negotiated and sought to maintain subcontracting-related provisions in collective-bargaining agreements affecting how shipments entering the Chicago area would be distributed and delivered.
- The disputed provisions were grouped as: (1) a work allocation clause requiring Chicago-area deliveries from a local distribution point to be performed by the packer’s own union drivers; (2) a union standards clause allowing subcontracting only to carriers whose drivers received wages and conditions at least equal to union standards; and (3) union signatory clauses requiring use of union-signatory trucking companies for certain deliveries.
- The NLRB found the provisions void under NLRA § 8(e) and found the union’s economic pressure to obtain or maintain them violated NLRA § 8(b)(4)(i)–(ii)(A), (B).
- The union petitioned for review in the D.C. Circuit; the NLRB cross-petitioned for enforcement. The union conceded the union signatory clauses were unlawful.

## Issues

1. Whether the work allocation clause and union standards clause were prohibited “hot cargo” agreements under NLRA § 8(e) because they had a secondary objective, rather than a lawful primary work-preservation objective.
2. Whether the union’s economic pressure to secure or enforce those clauses constituted unlawful secondary activity under NLRA § 8(b)(4)(i)–(ii)(A), (B).

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit denied the union’s petition for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-petition for enforcement of the Board’s order.
- The court upheld the Board’s determination that the work allocation clause was unlawful under § 8(e) because, in operation, it pressured the packers to alter dealings with independent carriers and affected neutral employers.
- The court upheld the Board’s determination that the union standards clause was unlawful under § 8(e) because it conditioned the packers’ business with outside carriers on those carriers meeting union-level wages and conditions.
- The court treated the union signatory clauses as unlawful under § 8(e) based on the union’s concession and the clauses’ direct requirement to avoid nonunion firms.
- Because the clauses were unlawful under § 8(e), the court sustained the Board’s finding that the union’s efforts to obtain or enforce them violated § 8(b)(4)(i)–(ii)(A), (B).

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 8(e) prohibits union-employer agreements that require the employer to cease or refrain from doing business with other persons; the prohibition reaches subcontracting provisions that operate to restrict dealings with neutral employers.
- A subcontracting or work-related clause framed as “work preservation” is unlawful if its practical object is secondary—i.e., to influence the labor policies of neutral employers or to force the contracting employer to condition business on union representation or union-approved standards.
- Clauses that require subcontractors to meet union wage and working-condition standards can violate § 8(e) when they function as pressure on neutral carriers as a condition of obtaining the employer’s business.
- Union signatory requirements directing an employer to use only unionized outside firms are classic § 8(e) violations.
- When an agreement is unlawful under § 8(e), union threats, strikes, picketing, or other coercive conduct aimed at securing or enforcing that agreement may constitute unlawful secondary activity under NLRA § 8(b)(4)(i)–(ii)(A), (B).
- Courts give substantial deference to the NLRB’s application of the primary/secondary distinction when supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the statute’s aim to restrict secondary boycotts.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit enforced the NLRB’s order, holding that the challenged work allocation and union standards clauses were prohibited secondary agreements under NLRA § 8(e) because they effectively conditioned the packers’ dealings with outside carriers, and that the union’s economic pressure to obtain or maintain such provisions violated NLRA § 8(b)(4).


Meat & Highway Drivers, Local Union No. 710 v. NLRB, 335 F.2d 709 (D.C. Cir. 1964)