National Labor Relations Board v. Fruit & Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen, Local 760

1964-04-20

Headline: Court narrows federal ban on secondary picketing, allowing peaceful consumer pickets that urge shoppers not to buy a struck product, limiting enforcement against product-specific boycotts at retail stores.

Holding: The Court held that peaceful picketing at a retailer aimed only at persuading customers not to buy a struck product does not automatically violate the federal ban on secondary coercion and therefore did not unlawfully threaten the retailer.

Real World Impact:

Allows unions to peacefully urge customers not to buy a struck product outside stores.
Requires proof of pressure on the retailer itself before declaring consumer picketing unlawful.
Limits the NLRB’s automatic enforcement against all secondary consumer picketing.

Topics: consumer picketing, secondary boycotts, labor disputes, retail boycotts

Summary

Background

A Teamsters union in Yakima struck fruit packers and organized a consumer boycott of Washington State apples. Union members picketed the customer entrances of 46 Safeway stores in Seattle, handing out leaflets and holding signs asking shoppers not to buy those apples. The union told store managers the pickets would be peaceful and instructed pickets not to interfere with employees, deliveries, or customer access. The National Labor Relations Board charged the unions with violating the law and ordered relief.

Reasoning

The key question was whether peaceful picketing that asks customers only not to buy a struck product automatically “threatens, coerces, or restrains” the retailer under the federal ban. The Court reviewed the statute and its legislative history and concluded Congress targeted abusive efforts that try to force a neutral business to stop dealing with the struck supplier, not narrow appeals to boycott a particular product. The Court held product-specific consumer picketing did not automatically violate the statute and set aside the Board’s order.

Real world impact

Unions may engage in peaceful, product-focused consumer picketing without an automatic finding that the retailer was unlawfully coerced. Retailers and labor regulators must show broader pressure on the retailer itself before treating such picketing as unlawful. The ruling leaves open challenges where picketing goes beyond a product-specific appeal or actually pressures the retailer to stop doing business.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Black agreed with the outcome but said the ban, so interpreted, violates free-speech protections; Justice Harlan (joined by Stewart) dissented, arguing the statute plainly forbids this picketing and the Board’s order should be enforced.