The term “secondary boycott” refers to union or worker actions aimed at pressuring an entity to influence a separate target, typically by striking or boycotting a business that has no direct dispute with the union. In the U.S., the legality of such actions hinges on federal labor laws that govern unfair labor practices. This article explains what a secondary boycott is, how it differs from a primary boycott, and the current legal framework that determines when these activities are allowed or prohibited.
What Is a Secondary Boycott
A secondary boycott occurs when a union asks the public, suppliers, customers, or employees of a third party (the “secondary” party) to stop doing business with a primary employer that is the subject of a labor dispute. The aim is to leverage the secondary party’s relationship with the primary employer to pressure a settlement. Examples include urging customers not to buy from a retailer because the retailer sells products from a unionized supplier, or persuading a supplier to withhold materials from a company in a labor dispute.
How It Differs From a Primary Boycott
A primary boycott targets the employer with the direct labor dispute, seeking to compel bargaining or a resolution. A secondary boycott, by contrast, targets a non-culpable third party to exert indirect pressure. The legal risk is higher for secondary actions because they can appear to coerce or threaten a third party to influence the primary dispute. In many cases, courts scrutinize secondary boycotts for restraint of trade and unfair labor practices beyond the ordinary scope of collective bargaining.
Legal Framework In The United States
The legality of secondary boycotts in the United States is primarily governed by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended, and related federal statutes. Key provisions and concepts include:
- Unfair Labor Practices under NLRA Section 8(b)(4) prohibit unions from engaging in secondary boycotts that aim to force a neutral party to cease dealing with the employer in dispute.
- Picketing And Strikes rules vary depending on who is involved and the activities used. While peaceful primary picketing is protected, secondary actions that coerce third parties can be unlawful.
- Taft-Hartley Act adds restrictions on forms of collective action that interfere with the rights of others to do business with an employer.
- Public Policy And Case Law courts have repeatedly weighed whether a particular secondary action is coercive, coercive intent, and the effect on commerce.
Overall, most explicit or targeted secondary boycotts against neutral third parties are at heightened risk of being deemed unlawful under federal labor law. However, there are nuanced contexts and permissible activities, such as informational campaigns or lawful, non-coercive actions that do not pressure third parties to drop business with the primary employer.
Common Scenarios And Legal Outcomes
Understanding typical situations helps illustrate where legality may lie. Consider these examples:
- because the store’s supplier is in a labor dispute with the union. If the boycott aims to pressure the supplier through the store or to coerce the store to act in favor of the union, it risks being a secondary boycott.
- with the primary employer. If the vendor’s actions would coerce the secondary business to stop dealing with the primary employer, it could be unlawful.
- outside a store or supplier that simply informs workers or the public about a labor dispute without threatening or pressuring third parties may be more permissible, depending on context and state law.
- that do not explicitly threaten third-party businesses or attempt to coerce a third party to stop dealing with the disputed employer can fall into a gray area and require careful legal review.
How Unions And Employers Navigate Risk
Both sides should assess potential liability before engaging in conduct that could be construed as a secondary boycott. Practical steps include:
- of planned campaigns by labor attorneys to assess NLRA compliance and potential antitrust exposure.
- that does not threaten or coerce third parties to stop doing business with the primary employer.
- that emphasize information rather than pressure tactics aimed at third-party suppliers or customers.
- of objectives, methods, and anticipated impact to support compliance and defend legitimate actions if challenged.
Practical Considerations For Businesses
Businesses should prepare for the legal risk associated with secondary actions. Key considerations include:
- of supplier networks and potential impact from labor disputes on external partners.
- that address potential campaigns by labor groups without escalating tensions.
- for managers to recognize unlawful pressure tactics and avoid actions that could be construed as coercive.
- involvement when engaging with customers or suppliers who are connected to a labor dispute.
Bottom line: In the United States, most explicit secondary boycotts are considered unlawful under federal labor law, especially when they attempt to coerce neutral third parties to stop doing business with the disputed employer. Informational or non-coercive actions may be permissible but require careful navigation and legal guidance to ensure compliance. When in doubt, consult qualified labor law counsel to evaluate specific scenarios and mitigate risk.