San Diego County Waiters and Bartenders Union Local 500

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 7, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 470 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

470 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent , notwithstanding that the Respondent was not then certified as the rep-
resentative of Melson 's employees , without a petition being filed under Section 9(c)
of the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (7) (C) of the Act. '
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
San Diego County Waiters and Bartenders Union Local 500 in
alliance with Hotel Service Employees Union Local 402, sub-
sidiary to the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Bartenders
International Union affiliated with- the AFL-CI0 [Norhunt,
Inc., d/b/a Joe Hunt 's Restaurant ] and Joe Hunt . Case No.
21-CP-51. September 7, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 16, 1961, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Intermediate Report. * Therealfter, the Respondents and the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the Respond-
ents a brief in support of their exceptions.
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 en-
tire record in this case, including the Intermediate Report, the ex-
ceptions, and brief, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifi-
cations and additions.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that an object of Re-
spondents' picketing was to compel the Employer to recognize and
bargain with the Respondents. However, even though picketing is
conducted for a proscribed object, a violation of Section 8(b) (7) (C)
is not established if the picketing is, as in the instant case, for purpose
of truthfully advising the public, including consumers, that the Em-
1 The Trial Examiner , in his conclusions of law, failed to find that the Employer is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. We so find.
Additionally, the Trial Examiner also found, as a conclusion of law , that an object of the
picketing was to "induce" the Employer to recognize Respondents as the collective-
bargaining representative of its employees and to "induce" the Employer to enter into a
collective-bargaining contract with them. We shall amend this conclusion of law by strik-
ing the word "Induce" and substituting the words "force or require."
138 NLRB No. 55.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WAITERS & BARTENDERS LOCAL 500 471
ployer does not employ members of, or have a contract with, a labor
organization, unless such picketing has "an effect" within the mean-
ing of the publicity proviso to Section 8(b) (7) (C) .1 As set forth in
Retail Clerks Union Local 324 and Retail Clerks Union Local 770,
et al. (Barker Bros. Corp. and Gold's, Inc.),3 a companion case issued
today, such "effect" finding turns at least with respect to retail estab-
lishments on whether the picketing has disrupted, interfered with,
or curtailed the Employer's business.
The record establishes that all the truckdrivers employed by liquor
distributors supplying the Employer refused to cross the picket line
to make deliveries at the Employer's restaurant in La Jolla, Cali-
fornia, during the period from June 9 to on or about August 23,
1961, and thus all the liquor used by the restaurant had to be obtained
by the bartender and bar manager from suppliers' docks or ware-
houses and carried to the restaurant in a station wagon. Moreover,
during this period, Joe Hunt, an owner of the restaurant, was forced
to pick up most of the beer and bar supplies at a service station two
blocks from the restaurant-the nearest point to which the drivers
would approach the picket line.
It is clear that the picketing compelled the Employer to modify
its method of doing business with suppliers whose products were
essential to its daily operations and that the picketing has disrupted
and interfered with the Employer's business. Accordingly, we find
that the impact on the picketed Employer's business was sufficient
to constitute "an effect" within the meaning of Section 8(b) (7) (C).4
In view of the foregoing, and since the Respondents picketed for
more than 30 days without filing a petition, we find that the Re-
spondents violated 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, San Diego
County Waiters and Bartenders Union Local 500 in alliance with
Hotel Service Employees Union Local 402, Subsidiary to the Hotel
and Restaurant Employees Bartenders International Union affiliated
with the AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, representatives, successors, and
assigns, shall:
2 We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that so long as an object of
Respondents' picketing was to compel the Employer to recognize the Respondents and to
deal with them, it is immaterial that the picketing may have also had the purpose of
informing the public that the Employer had not contracted with the Respondents. See
our opinion in Crown Cafeteria, 135 NLRB 1183.
8138 NLRB 478.
' Ibid.
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from picketing or causing to be picketed or
threatening to cause to be picketed Norhunt, Inc., d/b/a Joe Hunt's
Restaurant, La Jolla, California, where an object thereof is forcing
or requiring said Employer to recognize or bargain with them as the
representative to said Employer's employees in violation of Section
8(b) (7) (C) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls in San Diego (and
La Jolla, if any), copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Ap-
pendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Twenty-first Region, shall, after having been duly
signed by an authorized representative of the Respondents, be posted
by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a
period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that such
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Transmit to the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region
signed copies of said notice for posting at the Employer's premises,
said Employer willing, in places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
MEMBERS RODGERS and LEEDOM, concurring :
We find, as do our colleagues, that the Respondents' picketing, com-
mencing June 9, 1961, had an object of recognition and bargaining
within the meaing of Section 8 (b) (7) of the Act. We also agree that
the Respondents' picket signs utilized, in substantial form, the lan-
guage of the second proviso to Section 8(b) (7) (C). However, we do
not agree that the Respondents' picketing thereby became "informa-
tional" and would have received the immunization of the second pro-
viso to 8(b) (7) (C), but for the delivery stoppages. As we said in our
dissenting opinion in Crown Cafeteria, 135 NLRB 570, we believe Con-
gress intended that so-called informational picketing may be con-
ducted only when there is no independent evidence of a proscribed
object and where such picketing does not have the effect of inducing a
work stoppage. Accordingly, we would here find, as did the Trial Ex-
5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WAITERS & BARTENDERS LOCAL 500 473
aminer, that the Respondents' picketing violated Section 8(b) (7) (C)
because it is clear from all the record evidence that, despite the lan-
guage of the picket signs, the picketing had both an object and the pur-
pose of compelling the Employer to recognize the Respondents and to
deal with them.
Moreover, even if the picketing could be deemed to qualify for
the protection of the second proviso to 8 (b) (7) (C), we would find, not
for the reasons set forth by our colleagues,6 but rather for the reasons
set forth in our dissenting opinion in Barker Bros. Corp. and Gold's,
Inc., 138 NLRB 478, that "an effect" of the Respondent's picketing
was to induce delivery stoppages within the meaning of the statute?
6 We are constrained to note that our colleages in this case appear to be distinguishing
between "retail establishments" and other business so far as the term "effect " In Sec-
tion 8(b) (7) (C) is concerned . No such distinction appears in our colleagues ' decision in
Bark o- Bros Corp and Gold's, Inc, 138 NLRB '478, which our colleagues are using to
express their interpretation of the so-called publicity proviso. Needless to say, this addi-
tional gloss which our colleagues now add has no basis in the language, intent, or meaning
of the statute See our dissenting opinion in Barker Brothers.
7 The Board is deciding today four cases arising under the second proviso to Section
8(b) (7) (C) In two of these cases, Barker Bros Corp and Gold's, Inc., 138 NLRB 478,
and Retail Clerks Internatidnal Association, Local 57, AFL-CIO (Heated Stores Company),
138 NLRB 498, the majority is dismissing the complaints in their entirety. We have
explained in our dissenting opinion in Barker Bros., why we believe that the interpreta-
tion by the majority of the phrase "an effect," as it appears in the second proviso, taken
together with the majority's views in the Crown case, virtually nullifies the prohibitions
contained in Section 8(b) (7) (C). We do not believe that the fact that in the other two
cases issuing today, Local Union 429, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO (Sam M. Melson d/b/a Sam Dtelson, General Contractor, 138 NLRB 460, and
the instant case, the majority is deciding that Section 8(b) (7) (C) has been violated,
requires any qualification of these views. It is not our position that the majority will
never find a violation of Section 8(b) (7) (C). The vice of their position Is that they
have construed the statute in such a manner that only flagrant union activity such as
was involved in the instant case and in Mel8on, which cannot be excused under any
possible interpretation of Section 8(b) (7) (C), will be found unlawful . This view, we
think, frustrates the clearly expressed intent of Congress and, for all practical purposes,
excises Section 8('b) (7) (C) from the Act.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY WAITERS AND BAR-
TENDERS UNION LOCAL 500 AND HOTEL SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
LOCAL 402, AND TO EMPLOYEES OF JOE HUNT'S RESTAURANT OF LA
JOLLA, CALIFORNIA
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 notify you that:
WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed or threaten to
cause to be picketed Norhunt, Inc., d/b/a Joe Hunt's Restaurant,
La Jolla, California, where an object thereof is to force or re-
quire said Employer to recognize or to bargain with us as the
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative of its employees in violation of Section 8 (b) (7) (C)
of the Act.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WAITERS AND
BARTENDERS UNION LOCAL 500,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------- --- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
HOTEL SERVICE EMPLOYEES
UNION LOCAL 402,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional
Office, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles 14, California, Telephone
Number, Richmond 9-4711, Extension 1031, if they have any ques-
tion concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The case involves an alleged violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , 29 U.S C . Sec. 151 , et seq., herein called the Act.
The complaint alleges in substance that the Respondents , without being certified
as collective-bargaining representatives of the employees of Joe Hunt's Restaurant in
La Jolla, California (herein sometimes called the La Jolla restaurant and sometimes
called the Employer ), and without having filed a petition under Section 9(c) of the
Act, on or about June 3, 1961, demanded that the Employer recognize and bargain
with them as collective-bargaining representatives of said employees , and on and
after June 9, 1961 , picketed the Employer with picket signs stating, on one side,
that the Employer had no contract with either of the Respondents , and on the other
side, "AFL-CIO Picket," that an object of said picketing was to force or require
the Employer to recognize or bargain with Respondents as the collective -bargaining
representatives of the Employer 's employees or to force or require the employees of
the Employer to accept or select the Respondents as their collective -bargaining rep-
resentatives ; and that, as a consequence of the picketing , employees of the Employer's
suppliers and of other employers refused in the course of their employment to make
deliveries or to perform services for their respective employers at the Employer's
premises . The Respondents ' answer admitted the picketing and that they were not
certified and had not filed a petition but denied the other allegations of unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway
in San Diego, California, on September 6, 1961 . At the opening of the hearing, the
General Counsel made a motion to amend the complaint with respect to the facts
of commerce , and the motion , unopposed , was granted . At the conclusion of the
General Counsel's case , the Respondents made a motion to dismiss the complaint.
The motion was denied without prejudice to their right to renew the motion at the
close of the hearing . At the close of the hearing the General Counsel made a motion
to conform the complaint to the evidence with respect to immaterial matters. The
motion was granted . The parties requested and the Trial Examiner fixed a time for
the filing of briefs . Within such time , briefs were filed and they have been con-
sidered.
From my observation of the witnesses , and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WAITERS & BARTENDERS LOCAL 500 475
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, a restaurant and cocktail bar, engaged in business in La Jolla,
California, since May 17, 1961, is owned by Norhunt, Inc., a California Corpora-
tion. From May 17 to August 31, 1961, the Employer's gross sales amounted to
approximately $117,000. During the same period, the Employer purchased, for use
and resale in its said restaurant and cocktail bar, beverages, foods, and supplies which
originated outside the State of California, valued at approximately $25,000. Project-
ing the Employer's business on an anual rate, but figuring it at a rate about 15 per-
cent lower than for the first 31/2 months, since that period included purchases to
build tip an inventory, the Employer' s gross annual business at La Jolla would be
approximately $341,000. On a like basis, its purchases of supplies originating out of
the State of California would be approximately $74,000 for a 1-year period.
In order to increase the Employer's gross volume of business from the figure shown
to $500,000, which is the amount set for retail establishments by the Board's
jurisdictional standards, the General Counsel has also adduced evidence of the
interrelation of the Respondents with other businesses in order to include the gross
sales of those businesses as well.
The evidence discloses that the stockholders in Norhunt, Inc., are Joe M. Hunt,
G. Robert Sloane, Lee Norton, and Walter Norton, with each owning 25 percent
of the stock. Hunt is vice president and general manager. Sloane is treasurer.
Walter Norton is inactive in Norhunt affairs. Hunt and Sloane also have business
interests in Yuma, Arizona. Joe Hunt's Restaurant in Yuma is a partnership in which
Hunt and Sloane each have a 371/2 percent interest. This business includes a
restaurant and steak house, a cocktail lounge and bar, and a luncheon restaurant
called Ham-N-Bun. Under the same roof with this restaurant but in a separate
room is "Joe Hunt's Bowling Lane," in connection with which Hunt and Sloane
operate a bar and cocktail lounge known as "Joe Hunt's Sport Center, Inc." Hunt
is president and Sloane is vice president thereof. Stockownership in the Sport Center
is divided equally between Hunt and Sloane. Hunt also operates, as a sole proprietor-
ship, "Hunt's at the Track," a restaurant and bar at the Greyhound Club in Yuma,
pursuant to a concession by said club.
All bookkeeping functions for Norhunt, Inc., at La Jolla, California, and for each
of the several named Hunt enterprises at Yuma, Arizona, are performed at 2755
Fourth Avenue, Yuma, Arizona, under the direction of, and by, Sloane. This in-
cludes all accounts receivable and payable records and facilities for writing checks.
Sloane has authority (albeit not exclusive authority) to sign checks for any of the
named enterprises, and he does so.
Hunt was general manager of the Yuma restaurant until May 1, 1961, when the La
Jolla restaurant was near its opening date. Then he turned over management of the
Yuma restaurant and the Sport Center to Sloane, while he, himself, became general
manager of the La Jolla restaurant. As manager, Sloane consults Hunt about matters
of major expenses, matters of policy, and about employment problems at Yuma.
When Sloane was called out of town for a while in June 1961, Hunt returned from
La Jolla to Yuma to fill in for Sloane there. Before the La Jolla restaurant opened,
Hunt asked several of his Yuma employees if they wished to go to La Jolla and,
when they accepted the offer, he transferred them. After the opening, two more
were transferred the same way. Hunt determines wage rates, vacations, and employ-
ment policies both at Yuma and at La Jolla. The wage rates at La Jolla are higher
than at Yuma. The vacation policy is expected to be the same. Except for em-
ployees transferring from Yuma to La Jolla, the employees at La Jolla had not yet
accumulated enough service to be entitled to a vacation, so the occasion had not yet
required the institution of a vacation plan. In computing accumulated service for
determination of vacations of the transferred employees, their accumulated Yuma
service will be counted at La Jolla.
Hunt sometimes uses employees from the Yuma restaurant in his operations at
Hunt's at the Track, such employees working at both places at different hours in the
same day. During a convention there in May 1961, Hunt even took some of the
La Jolla employees back to Yuma to assist.
Although its records are kept in Yuma, Norhunt, Inc., has its own bank account in
La Jolla, upon which payroll and other checks are drawn. Although Walter Norton
is inactive, Lee Norton is learning the business of Norhunt and is expected eventually
to take over management of the La Jolla operations, leaving Hunt free to go back
and forth between La Jolla and Yuma in the management of the businesses in both
locations. The data when Lee Norton will become the manager at La Jolla is not
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
yet fixed. In fact, Norton had been out of California for a period of about 6 weeks
before the hearing and apparently was still away.
By arrangements for proration of the costs between the respective owners, the Yuma
restaurant and the La Jolla restaurant have been jointly advertised in newspapers and
on posterboards as Joe Hunt's Restaurants, with locations shown at La Jolla and
Yuma. Certain supplies for both restaurants are purchased from a common source.
This includes charcoal, meats, match books, cocktail napkins, highball glasses, menus,
and blank menu covers. The match covers, cocktail napkins (used in both restaurants
and in the Sport Center), the menus, and blank menu covers (with menus not yet
printed in them) all bear the inscriptions "Joe Hunt's" or "Joe Hunt's Restaurants"
and "La Jolla-Yuma." The cocktail glasses used in La Jolla bear the inscription
"Joe Hunt's Restaurant, Yuma, Arizona."
It is the General Counsel's contention that the foregoing facts show the existence
of an integrated enterprise. The Respondents claim that it is not and point to
the differences in ownership, the differences in control, the lack of any contract
right to transfer employees, and the diverse determination of labor policy.
The variations in ownership are of little importantce, as may be seen from cases
where separate employers are grouped for jurisdictional purposes when they are as-
sociated for the purpose of negotiating labor contracts.' In such cases each Employer
has a separate nonoverlapping proprietary interest. Nor is it material that in the
determination of the existence of a single enterprise each segment is under different
local management?
As to the transfer of employees, it is true that Hunt had no contract with em-
ployees of the various restaurants and cocktail lounges which gave him the right
to transfer them from one place to another. However, a contract was apparently
unnecessary, since Hunt was able to accomplish such transfers by common consent.
The fact that an interchange of employees is accomplished without compulsion of
employees does not alter the fact that such interchange is accomplished when the
need arises, and the fact that an interchange takes place when the necessity arises
demonstrates a measure of integration which must be considered with other evi-
dence of integration. The Respondents also contend that Hunt has not the sole
right to determine labor policy, since he consulted other owners of Norhunt in
meeting with the representatives of the Respondents and considering their proposals.
This evidence does not derrogate from the force of the evidence that Hunt determined
wage rates, vacations, and the need for transfer of employees. Despite the evidence
that the Yuma and the La Jolla restaurants require local management, it is evident
that Hunt is the one man in both locations with the most restaurant experience
and that determination of labor policies is left largely in his hands.
On all the evidence, I conclude and find that Norhunt, Inc., and the various
enterprises in Yuma are so far integrated that for jurisdictional purposes they con-
stitute a single enterprise .3
In the calendar year 1960, Joe Hunt's Restaurant, Yuma, Arizona, had gross sales
of food and beverages in the amount of $309,606.35. For the first 6 months of
1961, it had gross sales of foods and beverages of $177,523. For the fiscal year
ending July 31, 1961, Joe Hunt's Sport Center, Inc., had a gross volume of business
of $57,845.98.
From July 1, 1960, to June 30, 1961, Joe Hunt's Restaurant and Joe Hunt's
Sport Center, Inc., purchased and received meats and beverages originating outside
the State of Arizona valued in excess of $53,000 for use and resale in their res-
taurant and bar operations.
From January to September 6, 1961, Hunt's at the Track had a gross volume of
business of $34,310.67.
The total volume of business annually for the several restaurants, bars, and
cocktail lounges, computing the La Jolla operations on a projected annual basis, is
well in excess of $700,000. Even if only the two restaurants were considered, the
total business would be far in excess of the $500,000 gross required under the
Board's standards for restaurants.4 Since the Board's policy regarding its optional
assertion of jurisdiction is met, the only remaining question is whether or not the
Board has jurisdiction in the legal sense . It has been found that the purchases
' E g , American Linen Supply Co., et at , 128 NLRB 639; Westside Market Owners
Association, et at., 126 NLRB 167.
2Southwest Hotels, Inc. (Grady Manning Hotel), 126 NLRB 1151
2Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. (of Kentucky), 115 NLRB 622; Levitz Service
Company, 121 NLRB 205; Southwest Hotels , Inc. (Grady Manning Hotel ), 126 NLRB
1151; Emil Denemark, Inc, 120 NLRB 1059.
' Southern Cafeteria Operating Company, Case No 10-RC-4436 (October 29, 1959, not
published in NLRB volumes ) ; Bickford's Inc., 110 NLRB 1904.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WAITERS & BARTENDERS LOCAL 500 477
of the La Jolla restaurant of foods and beverages that originated outside the State
of California on an annual basis would exceed $70,000., The Employer alone, there-
fore, has made purchases indirectly from outside the State which are substantial
and have an impact upon commerce among the several States.5 The purchases of
foods and beverages in the Yuma restaurants and cocktail bars would bring that
amount to well in excess of $100,000. These figures are certainly not de minimis,e
Accordingly, I find that the Board has legal jurisdiction and that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Respondents, San Diego County Waiters and Bartenders Union Local 500 and
Hotel Service Employees Union Local 402, are, respectively, labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Loretta Proctor, a business representative for Respondent Local 402, on or about
May 3, 1961, informed Joe Hunt she would like to have him sign a contract with
the Union. Hunt replied that he had never seen a contract. Proctor left but re-
turned about a week later and gave Hunt a copy of the contract used by her union.
Subsequently, on or about May 14, 1961, Proctor phoned Hunt, asked if he had
read the contract, and requested a meeting. One was set for Friday, May 19, 1961.
On the afternoon of May 19, Proctor, Gustavus Mureo, a business representative
for Respondent Local 500, and Charles Hardy, president of The Local Joint Board,
met with Hunt, Sloane, and Lee Norton.? Mureo presented a restaurant contract
and a hotel contract, and asked Hunt to sign "one or the other." Proctor and Mureo
wanted an answer by the following week, but Norton wanted his lawyer to see it
and said that it might be several weeks or more before he could discuss a contract.
On June 9, 1961, the Respondents commenced picketing the Employer with signs
bearing, on one side, the legend, "This establishment has no contract with Waiters
and Bartenders Local 500 and Culinary Alliance Local 402," and on the other side,
"AFL-CIO picket." Charles Hardy, the president of The Local Joint Board, com-
prised of Local 500 and Local 402, who was present at the beginning of the May
19 meeting, described above, was the person empowered to authorize this picketing.
The Respondents contend first that the picketing was not shown to have been
for prohibited objectives. - They reason that the lapse of time between the date of
the meeting of the union representatives with the representatives of the Employer
and the date of the commencement of the picketing, a lapse of approximately 3
weeks, disassociates the picketing from the request for recognition. The Respond-
ents further argue that their objective could not have been to bargain with the
Employer because Proctor and Mureo were not authorized to negotiate the terms
of a contract, their authority being limited to attempting to procure the signature
of the Employer on a form contract. Such argument is not persuasive. None of
the facts referred to by the Respondents alters my conclusion that the picketing was
for an illegal objective. The fact that the union representatives had no authority
to vary the terms of the Union's form contract does not alter the fact that the
Union sought to contract with the Employer. This alone is sufficient to indicate
that the Respondents had in mind requiring the Employer to recognize them as the
bargaining representative for the Employer's employees. The lapse of 3 weeks
between the request for a signing of their contract and the commencement of picket-
ing may readily be explained by the fact that Norton had indicated that he would
require several weeks to consider the contracts before he could give an answer.
When the Respondents failed to hear from the Employer after those few weeks,
they were warranted in believing that the Employer was unwilling to sign their
contract. I conclude that the picketing had as one objective, at least, the putting
of pressure upon the Employer to cause it to sign such contract. That the picketing
may have had the purpose also of informing the public that the Employer had no't
contracted with the Respondents is immaterial so long as one of the purposes of
the picketing was to compel the Employer to recognize the Respondents and to
deal with them.8
5 See Leonard SmitZey and Joseph W. Drown, d/b/a Crown Cafeteria, a Co-partnership,
130 NLRB 570.
8 See Southwest Hotels, Inc. (Grady Mantning Hotel ), 126 NLRB 1151; Westside Market
Owners Association, et al., 126 NLRB 167.
7 Hardy excused himself after Introductions.
8 Leonard Smitley and Joseph W . Drown, d/b/a Crown Cafeteria , a Co-partnership,
130 NLRB 570; Cartage and Terminal Management Corporation , 130 NLRB 558.
478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is undisputed that the Respondents failed within 30 days to file a petition under
'Section 9(c) of the Act, and it is unrefuted, and I find, that the picketing did, in fact,
result in inducing employees of suppliers not to deliver goods to the Employer over
a period of time during which the picketing took place.
I conclude and I find, therefore, that the Respondents, by picketing for recogni-
tion at Joe Hunt's Restaurant in La Jolla, California, for more than 30 days, without
a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act having been filed, violated Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Employer described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondents, San Diego County Waiters and Bartenders Union Local 500
and Hotel Service Employees Union Local 402, are labor organizations within 'the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. The Respondents have not either jointly or severally been certified as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of the Employer's employees.
3. On and after June 9, 1961, the Respondents engaged in picketing the premises
of the Employer, Norhunt, Inc., d/b/a Joe Hunt's Restaurant, with the effect of
inducing employees of other employers in the course of their employment not
to pick up or deliver or transport goods or not to perform services.
4. The picketing mentioned in paragraph 3, above, was conducted without a peti-
tion having been filed under Section 9(c) of the Act within 30 days after the
commencement of said picketing.
5. An object of such picketing was to induce Norhunt, Inc., to recognize the
Respondents as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees and to
induce Norhunt, Inc., d/b/a Joe Hunt's Restaurant, to enter into a collective-
bargaining contract with them.
6. By such picketing, the Respondents have, and each of them has, engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (7) (C)
of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Retail Clerks Union Local 324 and Retail Clerks Union Local 770,
both affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO and Barker Bros. Corp. and Gold's, Inc. Case No.
21-CP-44. September 7, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On a joint charge duly filed on March 17, 1961, by Barker Bros.
Corp. and Gold's, Inc., the General Counsel for the National Labor
Relations Board by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region
issued a complaint and notice of hearing on April 25, 1961, against
Retail Clerks Union Local 324 and Retail Clerks Union Local 770,
both affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-
CIO, hereinafter referred to as Respondents, alleging that Respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices af-
138 NLRB No. 54.