San Francisco-Oakland Newspaper Guild, Los Angeles Newspaper Guild, Local 69, Los Angeles Newspaper Web Pressmen's Union No. 18, Los Angeles Stereo-Typers' Union No. 58, Los Angeles Typographical Union No. 174, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge No. 94, General Warehousemen's Union Local 598, Building Service and Maintenance Employees Union No. 399, Los Angeles Mailers' Union No. 9, and Los Angeles Paper Handlers Union No. 3 v. Ralph E. Kennedy, Regional Director of Region 21 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the National Labor Relations Board

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed preliminary and supplemental injunctions issued under Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act against labor organizations alleged to have conducted a secondary boycott. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding reasonable cause to believe the targeted newspapers and printing company were neutral employers, and did not abuse its discretion by denying extensive discovery or oral testimony.

Holdings

1. The district court did not clearly err in finding reasonable cause to believe that the Herald-Examiner was operated independently from the Examiner, Chronicle, and Printing Company, and therefore that appellants' conduct could constitute an unlawful secondary boycott against neutral employers.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants' request for extensive discovery.
3. The district court did not err or abuse its discretion by deciding the preliminary-injunction application on affidavits and exhibits without receiving oral testimony.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding reasonable cause to believe that the Herald-Examiner was operated independently from the Examiner, Chronicle, and Printing Company, making the latter entities neutral employers and the picketing a secondary boycott under section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B).
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying appellants' requests for discovery, depositions, interrogatories, and attendance of witnesses in the section 10(l) proceeding.
3. Whether the district court erred or abused its discretion by refusing to permit oral testimony concerning allegedly disputed facts at the preliminary-injunction hearing.

Disposition

affirmed