NLRB v. Retail Store Employees Union (Safeco)

Supreme Court of the United States · 1980 · Labor Law

447 U.S. 607 (1980)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor Lawproduct picketing limitsNLRA§ 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)secondary boycottsecondary picketingneutral employerstruck product

Facts

Safeco underwrote title insurance in Washington and had close business relationships with five local title companies that searched titles, performed escrow services, and sold title insurance. More than 90% of each title company's gross income came from selling Safeco insurance, although Safeco did not control their daily operations, personnel policies, or exchange employees with them. After bargaining with Safeco reached impasse, the union struck Safeco and picketed not only Safeco's Seattle office but also each of the five title companies. The signs stated that Safeco had no contract with the union, and the union also distributed handbills asking consumers to support the strike by canceling their Safeco policies.

Issue

Does NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) forbid secondary picketing against a struck product when, at the neutral site, that picketing predictably encourages consumers to boycott the neutral business altogether? More specifically, does Tree Fruits protect product picketing where the neutral sells essentially only the primary employer's product?

Rule

Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) permits secondary picketing that merely follows the struck product and only persuades customers not to buy that product. But where secondary product picketing is reasonably calculated to induce customers not to patronize the neutral at all, or is reasonably likely to threaten the neutral with ruin or substantial loss, it constitutes prohibited coercion aimed at forcing the neutral to cease dealing with the primary employer.

🔒

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 manufacturer in Oregon. The union peacefully pickets outside Harbor Market, a grocery store in Portland, carrying signs urging customers not to buy Blue Mesa coffee; Harbor Market sells thousands of other grocery items, and Blue Mesa coffee accounts for a small share of its revenue.

Under the governing rule, is the picketing at Harbor Market most likely prohibited by NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)?

Explanation. The majority draws a distinction between picketing that asks customers to stop buying only the struck product and picketing that is reasonably calculated to induce customers not to patronize the neutral at all. Where the neutral sells many other goods and the struck item is just one among many, the situation resembles lawful product picketing preserved by Tree Fruits. Any loss to the neutral is incidental to reduced demand for the struck product, not coercion aimed at shutting off all trade with the neutral.