The Second Circuit affirmed the NLRB's finding that the Union violated Section 8(e) of the NLRA by seeking to enforce a work preservation clause against a neutral employer (Diageo), but reversed the award of attorneys' fees to Peerless.
Union's Work Preservation Effort Partially Blocked by Court
This case involved a dispute over a union's attempt to preserve jobs for its members. Local 917 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters had a contract clause designed to protect work traditionally done by union members at Peerless Importers Inc. When the company tried to move some of this work to a different company (Diageo) that didn't employ union workers, the union attempted to enforce the clause to keep the work with union employees.
The court reached a split decision. It agreed with the National Labor Relations Board that the union violated federal labor law by trying to force the neutral company (Diageo) to use union workers when it had no existing relationship with the union. However, the court disagreed with awarding attorney's fees to Peerless Importers, reversing that part of the decision.
For workers, this ruling shows the limits of work preservation clauses in union contracts. While unions can negotiate to protect members' jobs, they cannot force unrelated companies to hire union workers. This makes it harder for unions to prevent work from being moved to non-union employers, potentially affecting job security for union members.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.