Author Question: Why didn't the Supreme Court give its usual deference to the Board's interpretation of the statute ... (Read 56 times)

moongchi · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

Why didn't the Supreme Court give its usual deference to the Board's interpretation of the statute in this case?

Question 2

Does the Safeco decision modify the Tree Fruits decision?

potomatos · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

The Court did not give the usual deference to the Board's interpretation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) because it had serious questions about the constitutionality of Section 8(b)(4) of the NLRA should the Board's interpretation be upheld.
The Court stated that a statutory interpretation by the NLRB is normally entitled to deference unless the Board's reading of the Act is clearly contrary to the intent of Congress. However, under its Catholic Bishop precedent see Chapter 4, Section 26, the Court will pick whatever reasonable construction of the statute that will save it from unconstitutionality . In Catholic Bishop the Court invalidated Board jurisdiction over religious schools.

Answer to Question 2

Yes. Under Tree Fruits it was permissible under Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act for the union involved in a labor dispute with a primary employer to conduct peaceful picketing at a secondary site (or a neutral employer's place of business) with the object of persuading consumers to boycott the primary employer's product, so long as the union restricted its advocacy to the primary product and did not attempt to induce customers to boycott the neutral employer. As a result of the Safeco decision, secondary site picketing is illegal when the primary employer's product is the only product the neutral retailer distributes. Also, the Safeco court refers to product picketing that reasonably can be expected to threaten neutral parties with ruin or substantial loss as being contrary to the Act. Thus the court's decision may have applicability beyond a certain product, as in Safeco. The decision may require an economic analysis of the harm to the neutral employer's business in deciding whether the product picketing at a secondary site is legal under Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).