169 N.L.R.B. 683 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 5, 1968

169 N.L.R.B. 683 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF LAS VEGAS 683 Local Joint Executive Board , Bartenders and Culina- ry Workers of Las Vegas and Vicinity, Subordinate to the Hotel, Restaurant Employees and Barten- ders International Union , AFL-CIO; Culinary Workers Union, Local No. 226; and Bartenders Local No. 165 and Holiday Inns of America, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Inn of Las Vegas. Case 31-CP-19 February 5, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On February 1, 1967, Trial Examiner Maurice Alexandre issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trail Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Charg- ing Party and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs in sup- port thereof, and Respondents filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, only to the extent con- sistent herewith. Shortly after opening its_ motel in the Las Vegas area, the Employer received a letter from Respond- ents, dated September 1, 1965, in which Respond- ents notified the Employer that. Respondents had a collective-bargaining contract with all hotels in the Las Vegas area and requested that Employer become a signatory to -this agreement. On or about September 22, 1965, Respondents' representatives met with the Employer, and requested recognition and a collective-bargaining agreement. The Em- ployer refused. No picketing took place at this time. On March 2, 1966,E Respondents sent the Em- ployer a letter in which they stated that they had in- formation that the Employer was not adhering to the area wage standards, thereby threatening the benefits of Respondents' members. Enclosed in this letter were copies of the collective-bargaining con- tract Respondents had with other local hotel owners and the health and welfare programs con- tained in that contract. The letters stated that Respondents would be glad to answer all questions involving existing area standards but warned the Employer that if these standards were not adhered to, the Employer would be picketed. The Employer called Respondents on_ March 10, and a meeting was arranged between Respondents and the Em- ployer for March 14. At this meeting the Employer claimed it did not understand Respondents' letter; Respondents replied that the letter was self-ex- planatory. Picketing began on March 19; Respond- ents' pickets carried a sign that stated, "Em- ployees of Holiday Inn do not receive wages and conditions standard to our area Culinary Workers Union Local 226, and Bartenders Union Local 165." On April 13, the Employer filed an 8(b)(7)(C) charge and a petition for an election. On May 2, the Respondents notified the Regional Director that they had no interest in representing the hotel's em- ployees. In a letter, dated May 17, the Regional Director notified the parties that pursuant to Sec- tions 8 (b)(7)(C) and 9(c) an expedited election would be held. On May 24, the Respondents again notified the Regional Director of their lack of in- terest in representing the employees. The election took place on May 24; and Respondents lost. Respondents objected to the election, alleging it to be a nullity. The Regional Director overruled the objection. On June 16, Respondents requested the Board to review the Regional Director's Decision. On- June 28, the Board denied the request for review. On September 2, the district court enjoined the picketing which had continued since March 19. The Trial Examiner concluded that a preponder- ance of the credible evidence failed to show that Respondents' postelection picketing was to obtain recognition or had any other forbidden object under Section 8(b)(7), and hence failed to establish a violation of Section 8(b)(7)(B). Essential to this conclusion is the Trial Examiner's subsidiary find- ing that the purpose of Respondents' picketing was solely to enforce the Employer's adherence to prevailing area standards. We do not agree. In their March 2 letter to the Employer, Respond- ents enclosed copies of their collective-bargaining agreement with other local employers and of the health and welfare program established thereunder. The letter asserted that the Employer's failure to observe the fair standards posed a threat to the "wages and conditions" enjoyed by members of the Union, and then went on to say: Accordingly, we have decided to advise you of the nature of these prevailing standards and de- ' All dates hereinafter mentioned relate to 1966 unless otherwise in- dicated. 169 NLRB No. 102 684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mand thay you meet them promptly for your employees; and that you thereafter maintain such standards in effect at all times. For this purpose you will find enclosed herewith a copy of the health and welfare program established under said agreement. In presenting this evidence of prevailing stan- dards it should be clearly understood that while we expect you to observe the wages, hours, and other benefits set forth in these documents, we do not expect or seek any collective bargaining relationship with your firm. [Emphasis suppli- ed. Further, on March 14, at a meeting between the Employer and Respondents, in response to the Em- ployer's statement that he did not understand the letter of March 2, Respondents replied, "The letter is self-explanatory"; and nothing more was said. From the foregoing, and considering also Respond- ents' lack of interest in ascertaining from the Em- ployer whether the latter's employment conditions and benefits did, or did not, meet the area stand- ards, we conclude that the Respondents' true ob- ject was to require and maintain the identical em- ployment terms and benefits as defined in the Respondents' contracts with other hotel owners in the area. Such a requirement clearly reflects a pur- pose to impose a bargaining relationship on the Em- loyer, contrary to the provisions of Section 8(b)(7) of the Act.2 It therefore follows that the picketing which occurred in furtherance of that objective was violative of Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act. We so find. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Holiday Inns of America, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Inn of Las Vegas, is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondents, Local Joint Executive Board, Bartenders and Culinary Workers of Las Vegas and Vicinity, subordinate to the Hotel, Restaurant Em- ployees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO; Culinary Workers Union, Local No. 226; and Bartenders Local No. 165, are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2See State-Mart, Inc., dlbla Giant Food, 166 NLRB 818; see also Centralia Building and Construction Trades Council, 155 NLRB 803, enfd . 363 F.2d 699 (C.A.D.C.). S In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States 3. Respondents, by picketing Holiday Inns of America, d/b/a Holiday Inn of Las Vegas, at Las Vegas, Nevada, with the object of forcing or requir- ing Holiday Inn to recognize or bargain collectively with Respondents as representatives of its em- ployees, or forcing or requiring said employees to accept or select Respondents as their collective- bargaining representatives, when valid election under Section 9(c) of the Act had been held within the preceding 12 months which the Respondents did not win, have engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respond- ent, Local Joint Executive Board, Bartenders and Culinary Workers of Las Vegas and Vicinity, sub- ordinate to the Hotel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO; Culi- nary Workers Union, Local No. 226; and Barten- ders Local No. 165, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from picketing, or causing to be picketed, or threatening to picket, Holiday Inns of America, Ic., d/b/a Holiday Inn of Las Vegas, where an object thereof is to force or require Holiday Inns of America, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Inn of Las Vegas, to recognize or bargain collectively with Respondents or to force or require the em- ployees of Holiday Inns of America, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Inn of Las Vegas, to accept or select Respondents as their collective-bargaining representatives where within the preceding 12 months a valid election under Section 9(c) of the Act has been conducted which Respondents did not win. 2. Take the following affirmative action which we find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at Respondents' business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."3 Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being duly signed by an official representative of Respondents, shall be posted by Respondents im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals En- forcing an Order." LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF LAS VEGAS said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. (b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 31 signed copies of the aforementioned notice for post- ing by Holiday Inns of America, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Inn of Law Vegas , if it is willing , in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Co- pies of said notice , to be provided by the Regional Director , after being signed by Respondents' representative as indicated , shall be returned forthwith to the Regional Director for disposition by him. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing ,.. within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL JOINT EX- ECUTIVE BOARD , BARTENDERS AND CULINARY WORKERS OF LAS VEGAS AND VICINITY, SUBOR- DINATE TO THE HOTEL, RESTAURANT EM- PLOYEES AND BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO; CULINARY WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 226; AND BARTENDERS LOCAL No. 165, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF HOLIDAY INNS OF AMERICA, INC. D/B/A HOLIDAY INN OF LAS VEGAS Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby give notice that: WE WILL NOT picket, or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket, Holiday Inns of America, d/b/a Holiday Inn of Las Vegas, where an object is to force or require Holiday Inns of America, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Inn of Las Vegas, to recognize or bargain with us, or to force or require the employees of the aforesaid Company to accept or select us as their collective-bargaining representative, where a valid election, which we did not win, has been conducted by the National Labor Relations Board among the employees of Holiday Inns of America, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Inn of Las Vegas, within the preceding 12 months. LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD , BARTENDERS AND CULINARY WORKERS OF LAS VEGAS AND VICINITY, SUBORDINATE TO THE HOTEL, RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES AND Dated By Dated By Dated By 685 BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) CULINARY WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 226 (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) BARTENDERS LOCAL No. 165 (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 10th Floor, Bartlett Building , 215 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles, California 90014, Telephone 688-5851. TRIAL EXAMINER' S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MAURICE ALEXANDRE, Trial Examiner: This matter was heard before me at Las Vegas, Nevada, on November 17, 1966, upon the complaint of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, issued on August 30, 1966,1 alleging that the Respondents had violated Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended. In their answer, Respondents de- nied the commission of any unfair labor practices. The issue presented is whether or not picketing engaged in by Respondents was unlawful because it had recognition as one of its objects. By agreement of the parties, there was received in evidence certain portions of the transcript of the testimony taken at a hearing in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada,2 and certain exhibits ad- mitted in evidence in that proceeding. The said proceed- ing was brought by the General Counsel to obtain a tem- porary injunction against the Respondents pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act. Upon the entire record, my observation of the wit- nesses, and consideration of the briefs filed by the ' Based upon a charge filed on July 1, 1966, by Holiday Inns of Amer- ica, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Inn of Las Vegas. 2 The parties stipulated that if called to testify in the mstant proceeding, the witnesses who furnished such testimony "would testify the same" as in such testimony. 686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Counsel and the Respondents following an ex- tension of time , I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS3 A. The Evidence Holiday Inns of America, Inc. (hereinafter called the Company), a Delaware corporation with its principal of- fice located in Memphis, Tennessee, operates a chain of approximately 100 motels in various States. At the end of September 1965, the Company opened a motel and restaurant in Las Vegas, Nevada, known as Holiday Inn of Las Vegas (hereinafter called the Inn). Phillip L. Boudrot was the innkeeper of the Inn from the time it opened until October 21, 1965, on which date Thomas A. Coleman was appointed innkeeper. Respondent Local Joint Executive Board is composed of Respondent Culinary Workers Union, Local No. 226 and Respondent Bartenders Local 165. At all times material herein, Al Bramlet was president of the Local Joint Executive Board and secretary-treasurer of Local 226, Warren Wilson was secretary of the Local Joint Ex- ecutive Board and secretary-treasurer of Local 165, and Ben Schmoutey was president of Local 226. 1. The establishment of wage rates for the Inn In June 1965, the Company informed Boudrot that he was being transferred to Las Vegas, where he would be the innkeeper of the Inn, which was then being con- structed in that city. Pursuant to instructions, he reported to Amarillo, Texas, to confer with his superior, Company Regional Director Prentice Moore, regarding his new as- signment . At the latter's request, he prepared a schedule of wages for various categories of employees for the Inn. It is the Company's nationwide policy to pay its em- ployees at least the wage scale prevailing in each area in which it operates; and when it opens an inn, it makes a survey of prevailing wage scales in the area. Where such wage scales are largely covered by collective-bargaining agreements, the Company uses the agreements as its standard; in other areas, it uses the wages paid by similar establishments as its guide . In establishing the wage scale for the Inn, Boudrot used the then effective collective- bargaining agreement entered into between Respondents and the resort hotels, downtown hotels, and casinos in Las Vegas. 2. The Company rejects Respondents ' request for a contract By letter dated September 1, 1965, Bramlet trans- mitted to the Company's industrial relations department in Tennessee a copy of the Respondents' collective-bar- gaining agreement , stated that all establishments in the area similar to the Inn were covered by the agreement, and requested that the Company sign an agreement covering employees of the Inn. On or about September 22, 1965, i.e., a day before the Inn opened for business, Wilson and Schmoutey met with Jack Barksdale, a com- pany vice president, and requested recognition and a con- tract. Barksdale refused. So far as the record shows, nothing else occurred at that meeting. Wilson testified that from that time until January 1966 Respondents desired a contract covering employees of the Inn; but that in that month, they concluded that since the Company was "operating nonunion" throughout the United States, it would be too expensive to attempt to ob- tain a contract, and they would cease trying to negotiate with the Company. 3. Respondents receive complaints regarding the Inn's standards and seek legal advice At the hearing in the district court proceeding, Bramlet testified that he received a call from Luigi's, a competing establishment located across the street from the Inn, inquiring how it could operate under union standards in view of the standards under which the Inn was operating; that approximately a half dozen former cooks employed by the Inn, whom he could not name, came to see him; that one of them complained that he had been paid $19 a day, the union wage rate for a fry cook, but had per- formed many additional duties which required a higher rate under the standard established in Respondents' col- lective-bargaining agreements ; and that the others led him to believe that unlike employees covered by such agree- ments , they had been required to make contributions to the Inn's employee health and welfare fund. 4. Respondents disavow a desire for recognition and threaten to picket the Inn unless it evidences an intent and ability to observe area standards Solely on the basis of the complaints from Luigi's and the former employees of the Inn, Bramlet in early January 1966 consulted Roland C. Davis, an attorney, who in- formed him that Respondents could lawfully picket the Inn in order to inform the public that area standards were not being adhered to, but that it would be necessary for Respondents to give up their attempts to organize the em- ployees of the Inn . In explaining why picketing was necessary, Bramlet testified that if the Inn were permitted to operate with wage scales and fringe benefits below those provided in the contracts which Respondents had with all the competing establishments in the area, the latter would seek to lower their standards. By letter dated January 4, 1966,4 Davis forwarded to Bramlet drafts of two letters to be sent to the Inn. and to certain other unions , and suggested that picketing com- mence in a week or 10 days if no reply, or an unsatisfacto- ry reply, were received from the Inn. At a board meeting held by Respondents on January 10, the drafts were ap- proved, and the letters, signed by Bramlet and Wilson, were mailed on March 2. The letter to the Inn, which en- closed • copies of Respondents'. collective-bargaining agreement and the health and 'welfare program established thereunder, stated that the Inn was one of the few employers in the area whose operations were un- dermining the standard wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment achieved through areawide bargaining with practically all hotels and restaurants in the area, and that the Inn's failure to observe the stand- 8 No issue of commerce is presented. The complaint alleges facts which Act. I find such facts to be as pleaded. establish that Holiday Inns of America, Inc., is an employer engaged in 4 All dates hereafter mentioned relate to 1966 unless otherwise in- commerce and in business affecting commerce within the meaning of the dicated LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF LAS VEGAS ards was a serious threat to the benefits enjoyed by Respondents ' members. Accordingly , the letter de- manded that the Inn promptly meet and maintain the prevailing area standards . The letter further stated that Respondents would be happy to assist the Inn if it had any questions relating to the manner in which to observe the prevailing standards; but that if the Inn failed to furnish satisfactory evidence of its acceptance of, and its determination and ability to maintain , the standards, Respondents would take appropriate action , including picketing the Inn to advise the public and other unions that it was not observing the prevailing standards. Finally, the letter stated: In presenting this evidence of prevailing standards it should be clearly understood that while we expect you to observe the wages , hours and other benefits set forth in these [enclosed] documents , we do not expect or seek any collective bargaining relationship with your firm. Any prior statements or indications which are inconsistent with this sole present purpose of requiring your observance of prevailing standards are therefore withdrawn and repudiated. On the same day, March 2, Bramlet and Wilson signed and mailed letters to three labor organizations in Las Vegas transmitting copies of their letter to the Inn, and requesting them to respect Respondents ' picket line. 5. The telephone conversation of March 10 Coleman, who , as already noted , had become inn- keeper of the Inn on October 21, 1965 , testified that about 2 days after receiving Respondents' letter, he in- formed his regional director , Conrad Moss, by telephone regarding the letter ; and that after a discussion as to what they should do, they decided that Coleman would "call the union and find out just what it was that we were not up to the standards with ." On March 10, Coleman held a telephone conversation with Wilson. In an affidavit furnished to the General Counsel a month after the conversation , Coleman had stated that the conversation was with Bramlet . He admitted at the hearing, however, that he had been mistaken and that he had in fact talked to Wilson. He testified at one point that he had dialed 384-9200 but could not now remember whether a male or female voice answered ; that he asked for Bramlet , was told that he was not in and was asked whether he would talk to Wilson ; and that he agreed and then spoke to Wilson. On further interrogation , he testi- fied that he could not remember what number he dialed, and he referred to the individual who first answered 'the telephone as "She." Coleman 's version of the conver- sation was as follows . He asked Wilson to explain in what areas the Inn was not meeting prevailing standards. Wil- son stated : "Well, wages, for one thing." Coleman replied : "Well, I think that our wages are as good as the union 's scale, or better." When Wilson then referred to insurance, Coleman stated that he thought the Inn had "as good a policy or better than anyone else," and asked if there was anything else. Wilson replied : "To tell you the truth , there hasn't been a contract signed ." At Wil- son's request , a meeting was arranged for March 14. Wilson testified that 384-9200 is Bramlet ' s office telephone number ; that the conversation with Coleman took place on Wilson 's office telephone , which carries the number 382-5680; and that although his office is one floor above Bramlet 's, calls cannot be transferred from one number to the other. According to Wilson's version 687 of the telephone conversation, Coleman stated that he had received a letter which he did not understand . Wilson asked whether he would like to meet with representatives of Respondents , Coleman replied affirmatively, and a meeting was arranged . Wilson testified that during the telephone conversation , there was no reference to area standards , wages, insurance benefits, or a union contract. 6. The meeting of March 14 Coleman met with Wilson , Bramlet , and Schmoutey on March 14 . Coleman testified that one of the three asked what they could do for him; that he stated that he thought they had come over to tell him what they could do for him; that they made no reply; that he then stated that he was expecting his regional director , Moss, in a few days, and would talk to Moss about a meeting with them if they wanted one ; and that nothing more was said . Bramlet testified that in response to Coleman 's inquiry as to what he could do for them , he replied that Coleman had telephoned Wilson and asked for the meeting; that Brain- let then asked Coleman what they could do for him; that when Coleman replied , "nothing," he again pointed out that the latter had called the meeting ; that Coleman stated, "Well, I don 't understand this letter"; that Brain- let replied , "The letter is self-explanatory "; and that nothing more was said. Wilson testified that one of Respondents ' representa- tives asked Coleman what they could do for him;- that Coleman replied that he did not understand the letter; that Bramlet stated that his letter was self-explanatory; and that nothing more was said . According to Schmoutey, Bramlet stated that Coleman had asked for the meeting and that Bramlet inquired what they could do for him; Coleman replied that he did not understand the letter; Bramlet replied that it was self-explanatory ; and that nothing else was said. All four witnesses agreed that no reference was made at the meeting to signing a union con- tract or to area standards. 7. Picketing begins At a board meeting held by Respondents on March 17, Bramlet and Wilson reported that the Inn "was still not meeting the standards of the industry in the area"; and those present unanimously passed Wilson ' s motion that a picket line be placed at the Inn to inform the public that the Inn was not conforming to prevailing wages and benefits. On March 19 , Respondents began picketing the Inn with signs which read as follows: EMPLOYEES OF HOLIDAY INN DO NOT RECEIVE WAGES CONDITIONS STANDARD TO OUR AREA CULINARY WORKERS UNION LOCAL 226 AND BARTENDERS UNION LOCAL 165 On April 1 or 2, union wage rates increased in the area. Coleman testified that the Inn thereupon raised the wages of its employees in order to remain comparable with union rates, but did not advise Respondents of its action. 688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is undisputed that Respondents never attempted to obtain verification of the complaints which it received concerning the Inn 's standards by asking the Inn or any- one else what wages and employee benefits the Inn's em- ployees were receiving. It is also undisputed that apart from the telephone conversation of March 10, no representative of the Company or the Inn either informed Respondents that area standards were being observed, or furnished any information which could have led to such a conclusion. Finally, it is undisputed that apart from their initial attempts in September 1965 and during the disputed telephone conversation of March 10, Respond - ents did not request the Company or the Inn for recogni- tion or a contract. 8. The expedited election On April 13, the Company filed a charge alleging that Respondents were violating Section 8 (b)(7)(C) of the Act in that they had continuously picketed the Inn since March 19 without having filed a petition for representa- tion. On the same day, the Company filed a petition for representation in a unit consisting of all employees of the Inn except office clerical employees, guards, professional employees , and supervisors. By letter dated May 2, counsel for Respondents in- formed the Board's Regional Office that they had "no in- terest whatsoever in representing the employees" of the Inn and did "not expect or seek any collective bargaining relationship" with the Inn. Accordingly, Respondents requested dismissal of the representation petition. By letter dated May 17, the Board's Regional Director in- formed Respondents that based on an investigation, it ap- peared appropriate to conduct an election to determine whether the employees in the unit described above wished to be represented by the Respondents or by no union , and scheduled an election for May 24 pursuant to Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 9(c) of the Act. By letter dated May 20, the Regional Director informed the Company that further proceedings on its charge were not warranted and a complaint would not be issued , since a timely representation petition had been filed, and an expedited election under Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 9(c) would be held. By telegram dated 'May 24 to the Regional Director, counsel for Respondents confirmed their telephone con- versation of the preceding week , in which he again dis- claimed any interest by the Respondents in representing the employees of the Inn, and reiterated the fact that Respondents would "not participate in any way in the pseudo election" scheduled for that day. The election was nevertheless held, Respondents were the only unions named on the ballot, and the official tally of ballots shows that 9 votes were cast for Respondents and 32 votes were cast against them . The certification of conduct of election issued by the Regional Office shows that no observer for Respondents was present at the elec- tion. 9. Respondents' objections to the election are overruled On June 7, Respondents filed their objections to elec- tion in which they requested that the election be declared a nullity on the ground that no question concerning representation existed, because Respondents had dis- claimed all interest in representing the employees of the Inn, and because the object of the picketing was to inform the public regarding the Inn's failure to maintain area standards, and not to organize the employees or obtain recognition. On June 14, the Regional Director issued his decision and certification of results of election in which he overruled Respondents' objections. The basis for the decision was that since Respondents had raised no objec- tion to the conduct of the election or to conduct affecting its results , but had objected only to the holding of the election, there was no basis for setting it aside. On June 16, Respondents requested the Board to review the Regional Director's Decision, and either to declare the election a nullity or to require a hearing to ob- tain evidence on relevant factual questions. On June 28, the Board denied the request for review. On September 2, the district court issued an order en- joining Respondents from picketing the Inn until the ex- piration of 12 months of the disposition of the instant proceeding, whichever occurred first. B. The Issue Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act prohibits a union which is not currently certified as the representative of an em- ployer's employees from picketing that employer within 12 months after a valid election under Section 9(c), where "an object" of the picketing is to compel him "to recog- nize or bargain with" the union. 5 As the parties recognize, picketing solely to compel the employer to conform his wage rates and other employee benefits to the scale prevailing in the area where he does business need not be equated to picketing for recognition or organization. A union may legitimately be concerned that an employer is undermining area standards of employment by maintain- ing lower standards, and the union may be willing to forego recognition to eliminate such substandard condi- tions. Houston Building and Construction Trades Coun- cil (Claude Everett Construction Co.), 136 NLRB 321. Accordingly, picketing by an uncertified union to main- tain area standards is not unlawful under Section 8(b)(7)(B) unless it also has recognition or organization as an object. It is undisputed that Respondents were not certified as the representative of the employees of the Inn. It is also undisputed that the picketing by Respondents, which Sec. 8 (b)(7)(B) and (C) provides: It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents- (7) to picket or cause to be picketed , or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed , any employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organiza- tion as the representative of his employees ... unless such labor or- ganization is currently certified as the representative of such em- ployees: (B) where within the preceding twelve months a valid election under section 9(c) of this Act has been conducted, or ... Provided, That when such a petition has been filed the Board shall forthwith, without regard to the provisions of Section 9(c)(1) or the absence of a showing of a substantial interest on the part of the labor organization , direct an election in such unit as the Board finds to be appropriate and shall certify the results thereof:... . LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF LAS VEGAS 689 began on March 19, continued beyond June 14, the is- suance date of the certification of the results of the elec- tion among the Inn's employees, and thus occurred dur- ing the proscribed 12-month period.6 Accordingly, the only remaining question for determination is the object or objects of such continued picketing.7 C. The Contentions The General Counsel contends that the following fac- tors demonstrate that recognition was an object of the picketing: Respondents' request for recognition in Sep- tember 1965; Respondents' admission that such object continued until January 1966; Wilson's statement, during his telephone conversation with Coleman on March 10, that a contract had not yet been signed; the fact that the Inn was meeting area standards; and Respondents' disin- terest in the fact, manifested by their failure to seek easily available information regarding such matters as the wage rates, vacations, and holidays received by employees of the Inn, and by their lack of inclination to discuss these matters at the March 14 meeting with Coleman. These considerations, the General Counsel argues, show that Respondents' several attempts, from and after March 2, to disclaim any desire to represent the employees of the Inn were nothing more than pretexts disguising their true recognitional object. Respondents insist that the following factors show that the sole object of the picketing was to maintain area stand- ards: the picketing did not begin until about 6 months after Respondents' single request for recognition; prior to the commencement of picketing, they had received re- ports that the Inn's standards were below area standards and they were legitimately concerned; they subsequently disclaimed all desire to represent the Inn's employees and refused to participate in the election; Wilson denied that he referred to a contract during his telephone conversa- tion with Coleman on March 10; Respondents never requested recognition after September 1965; the Inn's standards were below area standards in some respects; and in any event, the Inn failed to make any attempt to show that it was meeting area standards. D. Analysis and Conclusions In my opinion, the General Counsel has failed to sustain his burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that recognition was one of the ob- jects of Respondents' picketing. At the outset, it is neces- sary to resolve the conflict as to what was said during the March 10 telephone conversation. For if, as Coleman testified, Wilson referred to the Inn's failure to sign a con- tract, the unlawful object of the picketing becomes ap- parent. After careful consideration of all the evidence, I reject Coleman's version of the conversation and credit Wil- son's testimony that there was no reference to area stand- ards, wages , insurance benefits , or a union contract, and that Wilson merely expressed a willingness to meet in response to Coleman's professed lack of understanding of the March 2 letter. For one thing, Coleman was not a reliable witness. He incorrectly stated in his prehearing affidavit, furnished to the General Counsel a month after the telephone conversation, that the conversation was with Bramlet. He gave conflicting testimony regarding the number which he dialed to reach a representative of Respondents, stating at one point that he dialed 384-9200, and at another point that he could not recall what number he dialed. The record shows that he could not have reached Wilson's office by dialing that number. He also gave conflicting testimony as to the gender of the individual who first answered the telephone when he called, stating at one point that he could not recall whether the individual was male or female, but another point referring to the individual as "She." In addition, Coleman's version is inconsistent with his testimony that nothing at all was discussed at the meeting of March 14. If Wilson, during his telephone conversa- tion with Coleman, had in fact stated that the Inn had not executed a contract, Coleman's natural reaction at the subsequent meeting would have been to point out the dis- crepancy between that statement and the disclaimer of recognition in Respondents' letter of March 2. Moreover, if Wilson had referred on the telephone to the Inn's failure to meet area wages and insurance standards, Coleman may reasonably be expected to have sought, in order to avoid a picket line, to show that the Inn was attempting to meet area standards. Certainly he would at least have brought up the subject. On the other hand, Wilson's testimony regarding the telephone conversation is con- sistent with, and given credence by, the version of the March 14 meeting given by Wilson, Bramlet, and Schmoutey, i.e., that Coleman repeated his lack of un- derstanding of the March 2 letter, and that Bremlet replied that it was self-explanatory. I credit that version. Accordingly, I find that no reference to a contract was made during the conversation of March 10. I further find that the presence of a proscribed object is not established by the remaining considerations relied on by the General Counsel. In the circumstances of this case, it is unnecessary, if indeed possible on the record here presented, to determine whether or not the Inn's standards were equal to those prevailing in the area.8 In 6 Where, as here, no union is certified following an election, the 12- month period begins to run from the date of the certification of the results of the election. Retail Store Employees' Union, Local 692, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO (Irvins, Inc.), 134 NLRB 686. 7 As noted, to establish a violation of Section 8(b)(7)(B), it must also be shown that the picketing occurred within 12 months of a "valid" election. Section 8(b)(7)(C) prohibits recognitional or organizational picketing by an uncertified union for more than a reasonable period, not to exceed 30 days, unless a petition for an election is filed during that period. It further provides that upon the filing of such a petition, the Board shall conduct a special, expedited election. Respondents did not file a petition at any time after they began picketing the Inn on March 19. The Company filed a petition on April 13, and the Board conducted the expedited election pur- suant to Section 8(b)(7)(C). The General Counsel asserts that the election was appropriate and valid because the picketing had a recognitional object from its inception. In their brief, Respondents do not attack the validity of the election If one of the objects of the postelection picketing was recognition or organization, the validity of the expedited election must , of course, be determined If, however, the picketing was solely for the purpose of maintaining area standards, the validity of the election is immaterial. 8 Although the General Counsel's brief states at one point "that [the] Inn did meet area standards," it states elsewhere that wages and benefits at the Inn "are so nearly comparable that without a thorough and detailed survey by an economist , it might well be impossible to conclude that [the] Inn failed to meet the prevailing standards. Certainly, a casual inquiry would be sufficient." Respondents' brief states that "no serious attempt was made by Respondents to controvert the improper evidence proffered by the General Counsel in an attempt to show that the Company approxi- mated the area standards," but that even a superficial comparison revealed at least some variation between the Inn's and prevailing stan- dards 690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD some cases , such a determination may be essential. Thus, where a union commences picketing an employer without any attempt to ascertain his employment standards, or despite his attempts to demonstrate that his employment conditions are not substandard , a showing that the em- ployer did in fact meet area standards might , absent other evidence , constitute strong evidence that maintenance of area standards was not the object of the picketing.9 The record in this case, however, contains evidence support- ing Respondents ' assertion that they could and did be- lieve that the Inn was not adhering to area standards. Bramlet testified that he received complaints regarding the Inn 's standards prior to the commencement of the picketing , and I have no basis for rejecting that testimony. Although he failed to name complaining employees, he did name a complaining competitor of the Inn, Luigi's, in his testimony at the district court hearing on the petition for an injunction . The General Counsel thus had an ample notice of such complaint ; and since no explanation ap- pears for his failure to call a representative of Luigi's as a witness , it is reasonable to infer that the testimony of such a representative would have been adverse to the General Counsel. Franklin Brass Products, 151 NLRB 800, 806 , and cases cited therein ; accord : N.L.R.B. v. Kalof Pulp & Paper Corp., 290 F.2d 447, 451 (C.A. 9). In addition , Respondents informed the Inn on March 2 that they would commence picketing unless it met the prevailing area standards contained in Respondents' area- wide collective-bargaining agreement , and offered to furnish any assistance which the Inn might require in achieving that objective . Nevertheless , the Inn never at- tempted to persuade Respondents that it was adhering to area standards , or furnished information from which such a conclusion could be drawn , or even asserted to Respond- ents that is was meeting area standards . Respondents could reasonably infer from such silence by the Inn re- garding its standards that the complaints regarding sub- standard conditions at the Inn were justified. The General Counsel argues that the obligation rests upon a picketing union to ascertain whether or not the employer 's employment conditions are in fact substand- ard, that the employer is not required to prove that he meets area standards , and that it requires more than ignorance on the union 's part to establish good faith; i.e., a lawful objective . Implicit in this argument is the errone- ous assumption that Respondents have the burden of showing that the picketing was not for a proscribed ob- ject . The burden is upon the General Counsel to show a proscribed object. Local Union No. 741, Plumbers (Keith Riggs Plumbing & Heating Contractor), 137 NLRB 1125. Also implicit in the argument is the equally erroneous assumption that a union 's failure to seek inde- pendent verification of complaints regarding an em- ployer ' s failure to meet area standards establishes a proscribed object as a matter of law. The General Coun- sel cites several cases in support of his view,10 but a read- 9 Respondents concede in their brief that "Any determination as to whether or not the Company is meeting the area standards will only be relevant when and if the Unions decide to resume picketing." 10 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 903 (Pass Developments , Inc.), 154 NLRB 169; Centralia Building & Construction Trades Council, 155 NLRB 803, enfd . 363 F.2d 699 ing of these decisions discloses that they stand for the proposition that a union 's failure to inquire about the em- ployer 's standards prior to picketing is only one of the factors to be considered . And, unlike the instant case, it does not appear that the unions involved in the cited cases had, prior to picketing, received any complaints or communicated with the employer regarding the latter's standards. What the situation thus boils down to is this . Respond- ents unsuccessfully requested recognition in September 1965, but decided in January 1966 to stop trying to negotiate with the Inn. After receiving complaints that the Inn was not maintaining area standards, they in- formed the Inn on March 2 that they were no longer seek- ing recognition but would begin to picket if the Inn did not furnish evidence that it would and could adhere to area standards. Pursuant to arrangements made in a telephone conversation between Coleman and Wilson on March 10, Respondents ' representatives met with Coleman on March 14, at which time the latter stated that he did not understand Respondents ' letter and Bramlet stated that the letter was self-explanatory . On March 19, Respond- ents began picketing using a sign which referred only to area standards. At no time did the Inn ever furnish evidence or even assert to Respondents that it was adher- ing to area standards . And so far as this record shows, after their initial request for a contract in September 1965, Respondents' conduct was wholly consistent with their disclaimers of any desire for recognition. I therefore conclude and find that a preponderance of the credible evidence fails to show that Respondents' postelection picketing was to obtain recognition or for any other for- bidden object, and hence fails to establish a violation of Section 8 (b)(7)(B).II On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case , I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Holiday Inns of America, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Inn of Las Vegas, is an employer engaged in commerce and in business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondents are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The allegations of the complaint that Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act have not been sustained. RECOMMENDED ORDER It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. (C.A.D.C.); Big Star Food Center (Cases 14-CP-72 and 14-CP-76), TXD-718-66 and cases cited therein. [Not published in NLRB volumes.] " It is thus unnecessary to determine the validity of the expedited elec- tion.