Building & Construction Trades Council (Markwell & Hartz, Inc.)
National Labor Relations Board
155 N.L.R.B. 319 (1965)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Markwell & Hartz (M&H) was the general contractor on a project to expand a filtration plant (the plant). M&H subcontracted a portion of the project work—piledriving to Binnings and electrical to Barnes. During the construction project, a workers’ union (the union) had a labor dispute with M&H, but not with Binnings or Barnes. Vehicle access to the plant occurred through three gates: main, warehouse, and rear. The union picketed at the plant, holding signs directed against M&H. Binnings and Barnes’s employees never crossed the picket line. One day, M&H marked the main and warehouse gates as reserved for use by subcontractors and project delivery persons, and M&H’s employees were required to use the rear gate. The union’s picket briefly moved to the rear gate but soon returned to the main gate. Binnings’s employees entered the main gate and worked on the project when the union’s picketers left but respected the line once the picket recommenced at the main gate. Thereafter, M&H posted signs indicating that M&H employees and all project delivery persons were barred from using the main and warehouse gates and could only use the rear gate. The union continued to picket at these gates reserved for exclusive use by the neutral subcontractors. The National Labor Relations Board was called on the decide whether the union could lawfully engage in picketing at the reserved gates.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (No information provided)
Dissent (No information provided)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.