American Federation of Television & Radio Artists v. National Labor Relations Board

462 F.2d 887
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedApril 17, 1972
DocketNo. 24641
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 462 F.2d 887 (American Federation of Television & Radio Artists v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Federation of Television & Radio Artists v. National Labor Relations Board, 462 F.2d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1972).

Opinion

ROBB, Circuit Judge:

The question in this case is whether the record supports the finding and conclusion of the National Labor Relations Board that two unincorporated divisions of The Hearst Corporation must be treated as separate “persons” in applying the secondary boycott provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. § 8(b) (4) (i) — (ii) (B), 29 U.S.C. § 158(b) (4) (i) — (ii) (B) (1970). We think the Board’s decision is supported by the record as a whole.

WBAL Television, The Hearst Corporation, (WBAL) maintains and operates radio and television stations in Baltimore, Maryland. Baltimore News American Newspaper Division, The Hearst Corporation, (News American) publishes and distributes a daily and Sunday newspaper in Baltimore. WBAL and the News American are divisions of The Hearst Corporation, a Delaware corporation, whose principal offices are in New York City. American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Washington-Baltimore Local, AFL-CIO, (AFTRA) is a union that for many years represented WBAL’s staff announcers and employees appearing before cameras and microphones.

The collective bargaining agreement between AFTRA and WBAL expired on September 1, 1968. On September 21, after negotiations for a new contract were broken off, AFTRA struck and picketed WBAL in support of its demands. Two days later, in furtherance of its dispute with WBAL, the Union picketed the News American premises in Baltimore, six miles from WBAL. Although the News American employees were not members of AFTRA, some of them refused to cross the picket line, forcing the newspaper to curtail publication, distribution and circulation.

[889]*889In response to a petition by the Regional Director of the Board, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland enjoined the picketing of the News American. The court held that this picketing violated the secondary boycott provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. Penello v. American Federation of Television and Radio Artists Washington-Baltimore Local, AFL-CIO, 291 F.Supp. 409 (D.C.Md.1968). Also, upon a charge filed by the News American, the Regional Director issued a complaint alleging that AFTRA had engaged in prohibited secondary boycott activities. More specifically, the complaint alleged that, in furtherance of its labor dispute with WBAL, AFTRA picketed the premises of the News American, a secondary or neutral employer, with the objects of (a) inducing employees of the News American to strike or withhold their services, and (b) forcing or requiring the News American to cease doing business with WBAL and customers and suppliers of the • News American.

After a hearing, at which the evidence was substantially undisputed, the trial examiner found that the charges were sustained, and he recommended that AF-TRA be ordered to cease and desist from its unfair labor practices. The Board, with one member dissenting, adopted the examiner’s decision. The Union now petitions for review and the Board applies for enforcement of its order.

Section 8(b) (4) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b) (4), provides, in relevant part, that it shall be unfair labor practice for a labor organization:

(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to . transport, or to otherwise handle or work on any goods . . . or to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is—
* * * # *
(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease . . . handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer or to cease doing business with any other person . . . Provided, That nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or primary picketing .... (Emphasis supplied)

Section 2(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 152(1), provides:

The term “person” includes one or more individuals, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.

The Union argues, as it has from the beginning of this litigation, that WBAL and the News American are not separate “persons” within the meaning of the Act, and that the News American therefore cannot be a neutral “person” entitled to the protection of the secondary boycott provisions.

At the outset the Union contends that the “plain language of the statute” demonstrates that the News American cannot be a separate “person”. The argument is that the definition of a “person” in section 2(1) of the Act does not include or refer to an unincorporated division of a corporation, that “according to Section 2(1) of the Act, the only ‘person’ for the purposes of Sections 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) is The Hearst Corporation itself, and the separate operating divisions of The Hearst Corporation are merely parts of one ‘person’ ”. (Emphasis in original) We do not find the argument persuasive.

Section 2.(1) of the Act states that the “term ‘person’ includes one or more individuals, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations * * * or receivers.” (Emphasis added) We think that as used in this con[890]*890text the word “includes” is a term of enlargement, not of limitation, and that the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others. See Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 99-100, 62 S.Ct. 1, 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941); Argosy Limited v. Hennigan, 404 F.2d 14, 20 (5th Cir. 1968); United States v. Gertz, 249 F.2d 662, 666 (9th Cir. 1957); Pe-nello v. American Federation of Television & Radio Artists Washington-Baltimore Local, AFL-CIO, 291 F.Supp. 409, 414 (D.C.Md.1968). The statute must be construed in light of the congressional purpose, which is “to confine labor conflicts to the employer in whose labor relations the conflict had arisen, and to wall off the pressures generated by that conflict from unallied employers.” Miami Newspaper Pressmen’s Local No. 46 v. NLRB, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 192, 197, 322 F.2d 405, 410 (1963). The Act has “the dual congressional objectives of preserving the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes and of shielding unoffending employers and others from pressures in controversies not their own.” NLRB v. Denver Building & Construction Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675, 692, 71 S.Ct. 943, 953, 95 L.Ed. 1284 (1951).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
462 F.2d 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-federation-of-television-radio-artists-v-national-labor-cadc-1972.