In this decision, the Supreme Court held that consumer picketing was in violation of Section 8(b) (4)because, unlike that in Tree Fruits, it was "reasonably calculated to induce customers not to patronize the neutral parties at all. . . . Product picketing that reasonably can be expected to threaten neutral parties with ruin or substantial loss simply does not square with the language or the purpose of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B)."
A)Milk Wagon Drivers, Local 753 v. Meadowmoor Dairies, Inc.
B)Westinghouse Electric Co. v. U.E., Local 410
C)NLRB v. Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1001, Retail Clerks Int. Association (Safeco)
D)None of these answers.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1001, Retail Clerks Int. Association (Safeway) specifically addressed the issue of consumer picketing in violation of Section 8(b)(4), distinguishing it from other forms of picketing by its potential to induce customers not to patronize neutral parties, which was seen as not aligning with the purpose of the mentioned section.

In This Decision, the Supreme Court Held That Consumer Picketing