skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 97652 Find in a Library
Title: Qualifying the Expansive Interpretation of the Publicity Proviso
Journal: Labor Law Journal  Volume:36  Issue:1  Dated:(January 1985)  Pages:28-34
Author(s): G Morales
Date Published: 1985
Page Count: 7
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article reveals the courts' and the National Labor Relations Board's interpretation of the publicity proviso during the first two decades after its enactment in 1959 and identifies the more recent trend to limit its scope.
Abstract: The publicity proviso to the secondary boycott prohibition provisions of the National Labor Relations Act on its face protects publicity, rather than picketing, for the purpose of truthfully advising the public that a 'product' or 'products' are produced by an employer with whom the labor organization has a primary dispute and are 'distributed' by another employer. In the Lohman Sales Company Case, the board held that the fact that the company was not a manufacturer, but rather a wholesaler or distributor, did not prevent application of the proviso. The board continued its liberal interpretation of the reach of the proviso in the cases of Middle South Broadcasting and Great Western Broadcasting. In this latter case, the board rejected KXTV's argument that it was not a producer of products distributed by merchants; the Ninth Circuit Court enforced the board's order. The board dealt more directly with the interpretation of 'distributed by another employer' in Sakowitz, Inc., Pet, Inc., and Edward J. Bartolo Corporation. Sakowitz probably represented the extreme of the board's liberality; the courts rejected the board's continued trend in Pet and DeBartolo. Finally, in Delta Airlines, the board and the court agreed that the proviso protects only publicity that falls within the protected purpose. Included are 16 notes.
Index Term(s): Collective bargaining; Employment; Public information; Unions; US Supreme Court decisions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.