## Facts

- Safeco Title Insurance Co. underwrote title insurance in Washington and had close business relationships with five local title companies that sold Safeco policies.
- Each title company derived over 90% of its gross income from selling Safeco policies.
- Safeco held substantial stock interests and board representation in the title companies but did not control their daily operations or personnel policies.
- Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1001 was the certified bargaining representative for certain Safeco employees; negotiations reached an impasse and Safeco employees struck.
- The union picketed not only Safeco’s premises but also each of the five title companies.
- Picket signs stated Safeco had no contract with the union and urged customers to cancel or refrain from buying Safeco policies through the title companies.
- Safeco and one title company filed unfair labor practice charges, alleging unlawful secondary activity under NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
- The NLRB found a violation and ordered the union to cease picketing the title companies; the D.C. Circuit set aside the order as lawful product picketing; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) forbids secondary product picketing directed at a struck product when it predictably induces consumers to boycott a neutral employer’s business.
2. Whether picketing neutral intermediaries whose business overwhelmingly depends on the primary employer’s product constitutes unlawful coercion aimed at forcing the neutrals to cease dealing in that product or doing business with the primary.
3. Whether applying § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) to this picketing violates the union’s First Amendment rights.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and sustained the NLRB’s order, holding the union’s picketing violated § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
- The Court distinguished permissible consumer-oriented product picketing from prohibited secondary coercion based on the likely economic impact on the neutral employers.
- Because the title companies’ revenue depended overwhelmingly on Safeco policies, successful picketing would likely force them to choose between severe economic loss and cutting ties with Safeco.
- The Court rejected the union’s First Amendment defense, treating the statute as regulating coercive secondary conduct with significant economic effects.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s judgment.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) prohibits union coercion of neutral employers when an object is to force the neutral to cease dealing in the primary employer’s product or to cease doing business with the primary.
- Product-focused secondary picketing is not categorically lawful; it is unlawful when it can reasonably be expected to threaten neutral employers with ruin or substantial loss.
- The permissibility of secondary “product picketing” depends on whether it predictably pressures neutrals to sever business relations with the primary, rather than merely informing consumers.
- Restrictions on coercive secondary picketing may be applied consistent with the First Amendment where the regulation targets the coercive economic impact on neutral parties rather than suppressing viewpoints.

## Conclusion

The Court held that picketing neutral title companies to induce customers not to purchase Safeco policies violated NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) because, given the neutrals’ heavy dependence on Safeco’s product, the picketing foreseeably exerted coercive pressure threatening substantial loss and effectively compelled the neutrals to abandon business ties with the primary employer.


NLRB v. Retail Store Emps. Union, Loc. 1001 (Safeco Title Ins. Co.), 447 U.S. 607 (1980)