## Facts

- A general contractor on a Philadelphia housing project was bound by a local collective bargaining agreement with union carpenters.
- The agreement included “Rule 17,” providing that union members would not handle doors that had been “fitted” before delivery to the jobsite.
- In the Philadelphia area, union carpenters traditionally performed on-site work to cut and fit doors (e.g., mortising, routing, beveling).
- The contractor ordered prefitted doors from an outside manufacturer rather than blank doors.
- The union invoked Rule 17 and directed members not to hang the prefitted doors.
- The contractor canceled the prefitted-door order and substituted blank doors, which the carpenters then fitted on-site.
- A manufacturers association filed unfair labor practice charges, alleging the clause and its enforcement were unlawful under NLRA §§ 8(e) and 8(b)(4)(B).
- The NLRB dismissed the charges, finding the union’s objective was preserving traditional unit work (primary activity), not pressuring a neutral third party (secondary activity).
- The D.C. Circuit reversed as to § 8(e) (finding an unlawful product boycott) but affirmed dismissal as to § 8(b)(4)(B).
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari in consolidated petitions by the manufacturers association and the NLRB.

## Issues

1. Whether the “will not handle” clause, as negotiated and applied, constituted an unlawful “hot cargo” agreement under NLRA § 8(e).
2. Whether the union’s enforcement of the clause against the contractor constituted an unlawful secondary boycott under NLRA § 8(b)(4)(B), or protected primary work-preservation activity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals on § 8(e) and affirmed on § 8(b)(4)(B), effectively reinstating the NLRB’s dismissal of both charges.
- The clause, in these circumstances, was not an unlawful § 8(e) agreement because its objective was primary work preservation, not a product boycott.
- The union’s refusal to handle prefitted doors and inducement of employees to do so did not violate § 8(b)(4)(B) because it was primary activity directed at preserving unit work, not coercion aimed at a neutral employer.

## Legal Principles

- Sections 8(e) and 8(b)(4)(B) are aimed at curbing secondary pressure; they do not generally prohibit primary agreements and conduct directed at regulating relations between an employer and its own employees.
- For both § 8(e) “hot cargo” clauses and § 8(b)(4)(B) refusals to handle goods, the controlling inquiry is the union’s objective: work preservation (primary) versus pressuring a neutral third party or acquiring work at another employer’s expense (secondary).
- A contract clause limiting the use of prefabricated or premachined materials is not per se unlawful; it may be lawful when it is designed to preserve work traditionally performed by the bargaining unit, even if it incidentally affects other employers’ sales.
- The NLRB’s fact-based determination of the “object” of union conduct warrants judicial deference when reasonably supported and consistent with the statute’s structure and history.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a union’s “will not handle” clause and related refusal to install prefitted doors were lawful where their object was preserving traditional on-site bargaining-unit work; incidental effects on outside manufacturers did not convert the activity into an unlawful § 8(e) agreement or a § 8(b)(4)(B) secondary boycott.


Nat'l Woodwork Mfrs. Ass'n v. NLRB, 386 U.S. 612 (1967)