NLRB v. Denver Building & Construction Trades Council

Supreme Court of the United States · 1951 · Labor Law

341 U.S. 675 (1951)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor Lawsecondary boycottsNLRALMRATaft-Hartleysecondary boycottSection 8(b)(4)(A)doing business

Facts

Doose & Lintner, a general contractor on a Denver building project, subcontracted electrical work to Gould & Preisner, whose employees were the only nonunion workers on the job. The respondent Council instructed that the job be picketed as 'unfair,' notified affiliates in a manner that signaled union members to leave the site, and representatives told the contractor that union men could not work with Gould & Preisner's nonunion men. A Council-paid picket carried a sign stating the job was unfair, and during the picketing only Gould & Preisner's employees reported for work. Before Gould & Preisner completed its subcontract, Doose & Lintner removed it from the project, the picket was withdrawn, and union employees returned to work.

Issue

Whether a labor organization commits an unfair labor practice under § 8(b)(4)(A) by engaging in a strike and picketing on a construction project where an object is to force the general contractor to terminate its subcontract with a nonunion subcontractor. Also, whether the Board had jurisdiction because the conduct affected interstate commerce and whether an earlier district court ruling in a § 10(l) proceeding made that jurisdictional issue res judicata.

Rule

Under § 8(b)(4)(A), a labor organization commits an unfair labor practice when it engages in a strike where an object of the strike is to force an employer to cease doing business with another person. The forbidden objective need not be the sole object of the strike. A contractor and subcontractor remain independent employers doing business with one another even when working on the same construction project, and § 8(c) does not protect picketing that functions as a signal or direction to union members to engage in strike action prohibited by § 8(b)(4)(A).

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Arroyo Builders hired Mesa Steel Works to supply and install structural beams on an office project. The Desert Trades Council directed affiliated union members employed by other firms on the site to leave after posting a sign that the project was 'unfair,' because Mesa used nonunion installers; the walkout ended as soon as Arroyo cancelled Mesa's contract.

Did the council likely commit an unfair labor practice under § 8(b)(4)(A)?

Explanation. Section 8(b)(4)(A) is violated when a union engages in strike pressure and an object of that pressure is to force one employer to cease doing business with another. Here, the facts show the pressure on Arroyo could achieve the union's aim only if Arroyo terminated Mesa. The majority held that a contractor and subcontractor on the same project remain independent employers doing business with one another, and the prohibited objective need not be the sole object.