Labor Law - Hot Cargo Clauses No Defense to Secondary Boycotts

Authors

Joel D. Tauber S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

In August 1954 the Sand Door & Plywood Company sold a general contractor, through a millwork contractor, certain non-union-made Paine Lumber Company doors. The union notified its members at the construction site that the doors should not be hung because of the "hot cargo" · clause in their union contract. After negotiations between Sand Door and the union failed, Sand Door filed charges alleging secondary boycott action by the union in violation of section 8(b)(4)(A) of ·the amended National Labor Relations Act. A Board order was issued and enforced by the court of appeals. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, affirmed, three justices dissenting. Petitioners violated section 8(b)(4)(A) by encouraging their employees to refuse to handle the Paine doors in order to force the general contractor, millwork contractor, and Sand Door to cease doing business with Paine. The "hot cargo" clause is no defense to the violation. Carpenters Union (Sand Door and Plywood Co.) v. NLRB, 357 U.S. 93 (1958).

Recommended Citation

Joel D. Tauber S.Ed., Labor Law - Hot Cargo Clauses No Defense to Secondary Boycotts, 57 Mich. L. Rev. 291 (1958).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol57/iss2/10