NLRB v. Fruit & Vegetable Packers Local 760 (Tree Fruits)

Supreme Court of the United States · 1964 · Labor Law

377 U.S. 58 (1964)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor Lawconsumer picketingsecondary boycottproduct boycottsecondary employerprimary disputepeaceful picketingNLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)

Facts

Local 760 struck fruit packers and warehousemen in Yakima, Washington, whose Washington State apples were sold by Safeway stores in Seattle. The unions placed peaceful pickets at customer entrances of 46 Safeway stores, with signs and handbills urging customers not to buy Washington State apples. Before picketing, the unions notified store managers that the picketing was only an appeal to customers not to buy the apples, that pickets would stay away from delivery entrances, and that they would not interfere with employees or deliveries. During the picketing, store employees continued to work, deliveries and pickups proceeded normally, and there was no interference with customer access.

Issue

Does § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) prohibit peaceful secondary picketing at a retail store when the picketing is limited to asking customers not to buy the struck product of the primary employer? More specifically, does such product-focused consumer picketing 'threaten, coerce, or restrain' the secondary employer within the meaning of the statute?

Rule

Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) does not ban all peaceful consumer picketing at a secondary site. Peaceful picketing directed only at persuading customers not to buy the struck product, and not at inducing customers to cease all trading with the secondary employer, does not fall within the clearly prohibited area of secondary consumer picketing and therefore does not 'threaten, coerce, or restrain' the secondary employer under the statute.

🔒

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.

A union is on strike against Blue Mesa Roasters, a coffee processor in Spokane, Washington. Union members peacefully walk on the public sidewalk outside a Portland, Oregon grocery operated by Harbor Market Cooperative, carrying signs that read, "Please do not buy Blue Mesa coffee," while telling shoppers they may continue shopping for everything else in the store.

If Harbor Market files a charge under NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), what is the strongest argument that the union's conduct is lawful?

Explanation. The majority held that § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) does not prohibit all peaceful secondary consumer picketing. Peaceful picketing confined to asking customers not to buy the struck product does not amount to the kind of coercive pressure Congress clearly targeted. The key distinction is between product-focused appeals and appeals urging customers to stop trading with the secondary employer altogether. The Court also rejected both the view that all such picketing is unlawful and the view that legality turns on actual economic loss.