## Facts

- Royal Typewriter Company sold and rented typewriters and had ongoing obligations to service machines under warranties, service contracts, and rental/loan arrangements.
- Royal’s service employees were represented by Local 459 for collective bargaining.
- After bargaining negotiations failed, the union called a strike around March 23, 1954.
- During the strike, Royal arranged for repair work to be performed through independent repair firms:
  - Non-contract customers were told to contact independent repair companies.
  - Contract and warranty customers were told to select an independent repair company, obtain repairs, and submit invoices to Royal for reimbursement; in practice Royal often paid independents directly.
- The union conducted peaceful picketing at independent repair firms performing repairs on Royal machines; picket signs identified Royal as the employer in dispute and described the work as being done by “strikebreakers.”
- The union also picketed certain Royal customers believed to be using independent firms for repair of Royal contract machines, until a temporary injunction issued in June 1954.
- The NLRB found the picketing violated NLRA § 8(b)(4)(A) as unlawful secondary activity and issued a cease-and-desist order with notice-posting requirements.
- The NLRB petitioned the Second Circuit for enforcement of its order.

## Issues

1. Whether picketing independent repair companies performing Royal repair work during the strike was prohibited secondary activity under NLRA § 8(b)(4)(A), or permissible primary activity aimed at preserving struck work.
2. Whether picketing certain Royal customers constituted unlawful inducement or encouragement of neutral employees to engage in concerted refusals within the meaning of § 8(b)(4)(A).

## Decision

- The Second Circuit denied enforcement of the Board’s order in substantial part.
- The court held that, on these facts, picketing at independent repair companies performing diverted Royal repair work was primary activity connected to the dispute with Royal, not a secondary boycott barred by § 8(b)(4)(A).
- The court also rejected much of the Board’s treatment of the customer picketing as unlawful secondary activity, concluding the Board applied § 8(b)(4)(A) too broadly on this record.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 8(b)(4)(A) targets secondary pressure aimed at coercing neutral employers to cease doing business with a primary employer; it does not automatically prohibit union action that affects third parties when the object is tied to the primary dispute.
- Picketing directed at entities performing “struck work” diverted from a struck employer during a strike may be treated as primary activity, even when conducted at third-party locations.
- In assessing primary versus secondary conduct, courts consider the strike’s target, whether the work was ordinarily performed by the bargaining unit, whether the primary employer arranged the substitution, and whether the picketing clearly identifies the primary dispute.

## Conclusion

The court largely refused to enforce the NLRB’s secondary-boycott order because the union’s peaceful picketing followed diverted repair work that would normally have been performed by Royal’s striking employees, making the conduct primarily directed at the dispute with Royal rather than unlawful secondary pressure under § 8(b)(4)(A).


NLRB v. Bus. Mach. & Off. Appliance Mechs. Conf. Bd., Loc. 459 (Royal Typewriter Co.), 228 F.2d 553 (2d Cir. 1955)