## Facts

- Doose & Lintner served as general contractor on a Denver building project and subcontracted electrical work to Gould & Preisner, a firm that used nonunion electricians.
- Union-affiliated workers employed by the general contractor and other subcontractors were the only union labor on the site; Gould & Preisner’s employees were the only nonunion workers.
- A union representative warned that the project could not proceed with nonunion electricians and indicated difficulties for both the subcontractor and general contractor if they continued.
- The Denver Building and Construction Trades Council directed that a picket be placed on the project with a sign stating the job was “unfair”; under Council practice, this communicated an instruction for affiliated union members to leave and stay off the job.
- After picketing began, union members refused to cross the picket line, work largely stopped, and the general contractor terminated Gould & Preisner’s subcontract.
- Gould & Preisner made substantial out-of-state purchases of materials and shipped some products out of state.

## Issues

1. Whether the labor dispute and work stoppage at a local construction project sufficiently affected interstate commerce to support NLRB jurisdiction.
2. Whether inducing a strike at the project, with an object of forcing the general contractor to terminate its subcontract with Gould & Preisner, violated § 8(b)(4)(A) of the NLRA.
3. Whether a prior district court ruling in a preliminary § 10(l) injunction proceeding precluded relitigation of the commerce issue in later Board enforcement proceedings.
4. Whether § 8(c) (protecting noncoercive expression) immunized the Council’s picketing from § 8(b)(4)(A) liability.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and enforced the NLRB’s cease-and-desist order.
- A district court’s determination in a preliminary § 10(l) proceeding was not res judicata in the later merits-based enforcement proceeding.
- Substantial evidence supported that the strike affected interstate commerce and was within the Board’s jurisdiction.
- Substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that an object of the strike was to force the general contractor to cease doing business with Gould & Preisner, making it an unfair labor practice under § 8(b)(4)(A), even if other objectives existed.
- Section 8(c) did not shield the picketing where it functioned as part of inducement and pressure prohibited by § 8(b)(4)(A).

## Legal Principles

- A labor organization violates § 8(b)(4)(A) by inducing employees to strike where an object is to force a neutral employer to cease doing business with another person.
- The unlawful “cease doing business” object need not be the sole object of the strike for § 8(b)(4)(A) to apply.
- Contractor–subcontractor relations constitute “doing business” within the meaning of § 8(b)(4)(A).
- NLRB jurisdiction exists where the challenged conduct, viewed functionally in relation to the construction activity, has a sufficient effect on interstate commerce; small amounts on a particular job do not require declination of jurisdiction.
- Section 8(c) does not immunize conduct that falls within a specific statutory prohibition, even if the conduct includes communicative elements.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Council’s picketing-induced shutdown, aimed in part at compelling the general contractor to drop a nonunion subcontractor, was a prohibited secondary boycott under § 8(b)(4)(A), that the dispute sufficiently affected interstate commerce for NLRB jurisdiction, that a preliminary § 10(l) ruling was not preclusive, and that § 8(c) did not protect the conduct from statutory regulation.


NLRB v. Denver Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675 (1951)