Steamfitters Local 614

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 25, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 1026 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Steamfitters Local Union No. 614 , United Association
of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Can-
ada, AFL-CIO and Trumbo Welding and Fabricat-
ing Company . Case 26-CP-55
October 25, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
On June 6, 1972, Administrative Law Judge I
Frank H. Itkin issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting 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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed in its entirety.
I The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972.
2 The Charging Party has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibili-
ty unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces
us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc,
NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3) We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
FRANK H. ITKIN, Trial Examiner: This case was tried
at Memphis, Tennessee, on April 11, 1972. The charge was
filed by the Company on March 7 and the complaint was
issued on March 21, 1972. The issue presented is whether
Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act by picketing the Company for
an organizational or recognitional object where the Compa-
ny has lawfully recognized International Union of District
50, Allied and Technical Workers of the United States and
Canada (herein District 50) and a question concerning rep-
resentation may not appropriately be raised under Section
9(c) of the Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the witnesses, and after due consideration of the brief filed
by counsel for Respondent Union, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY, THE
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Company, a Tennessee corporation, is engaged in
the welding and fabricating business at Memphis, Tennes-
see. During the 12-month period immediately preceding the
issuance of the complaint, the Company in the course and
conduct of its business purchased goods and materials val-
ued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the
State of Tennessee. The complaint alleges , Respondent Un-
ion admits, and I find that the Company is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
The complaint alleges, Respondent Union admits, and
I find that Respondent Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The complaint does
not expressly allege that District 50 is a labor organization
within the meaning of Sections 2(5) and 8(b)(7)(A) of the
Act. However, according to the uncontroverted testimony
of District 50's International representative, Franklin V.
Wright, whose testimony I credit, District 50 is an organiza-
tion in which employees participate and which exists for the
purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or conditions of work.'Accordingly,
I find and conclude that District 50 is a labor organization
within the meaning of Sections 2(5) and 8(b)(7)(A) of the
Act.
II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. The Company Recognizes District 50 as the
Bargaining Agent for its Employees and
Executes a Collective-Bargaining Agreement
Company President Leroy C. Trumbo testified that his
Company employs about 50 to 70 workers who are classi-
fied as welders, fitters, helpers, trainees, and layout men.
i Wright, as discussed infra, credibly testified that District 50 obtained
signed authorizations from a majority of the Company's employees in an
appropriate unit; requested the Company to meet and bargain with District
50 for the purpose of negotiating and executing a contract concerning wages,
hours and other terms and conditions of employment for said employees;
thereafter negotiated and executed contracts on their behalf; and similarly
represented employees of other employers.
199 NLRB No. 158
STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 614
Trumbo testified that he received a letter dated October 10,
1968, from C. W. McColeman, regional director for District
50, stating in part:
This is to advise that a majority of the mainte-
nance and production employees, laborers and truck
drivers at your plant, located at Memphis, Tennessee,
have authorized the International Union of District 50,
United Mine Workers of America, to bargain with you
as their Employer on their behalf.
As the bargaining representative of your afore-
mentioned employees, [District 50] requests a meeting
with you for the purpose of negotiating and executing
a contract dealing with wages, hours and other terms
and conditions of employment for said employees.
The District 50 representative also offered in his letter "to
submit to any unbiased check of the authorizations to our
Union by your employees."
Trumbo further testified that about this same time he
received a telephone call from District 50 Representative
Wright, who "told [Trumbo] about the [authorization] cards
that [Wright] was holding." Trumbo immediately notified
his attorney, William Fortas, and a meeting was scheduled.
Thereafter, on October 17, 1968, Trumbo and Fortas met
with Wright and another District 50 representative at
Trumbo's office. At the meeting, according to the testimony
of Trumbo, the District 50 representative presented Trumbo
with signed authorizations cards from 75 to 80 percent of
the Company's employees. Trumbo, Fortas, and Wright
then signed an agreement of recognition, which recited in
part:
Recognition having been requested by [District
50] for a unit of employees of Trumbo Welding and
Fabricating Company, Memphis, Tennessee, and a re-
quest having been made by the Union for a card check
to substantiate such majority, a check of the Union's
authorization cards was made on October 17, 1968.
The unit requested by the Union is all production and
maintenance employees, laborers and truckdrivers em-
ployed by the Company. The total number of employ-
ees included in this unit is 42. The Union submitted
signed authorization cards from 30 of the 42 employ-
ees. The signatures of the employees have been
checked against the Company's last payroll and it is
determined that the signatures are authentic and true.
The agreement of recognition concluded that District 50
"has authentic signed authorization cards" from a majority
of employees in an appropriate unit and, therefore, the
Company recognizes District 50 as exclusive bargaining
agent for the unit employees.
At the hearing, the parties stipulated that Exhibit R-1
consists of the collective-bargaining agreement which was
subsequently executed by District 50 and the Company on
November 22, 1968, together with a tabulation or list of
company employees and their respective hourly rates of pay
as of November 20, 1968.2 The 1968 collective-bargaining
2 There are some 30 employees listed on this document , their separate
hourly rates range from $3.40 to $1.75.
1027
agreement provided, inter alia, that it would remain in full
force and effect until November 22, 1971. Thereafter, on
November 23, 1971, District 50 and the Company executed
a second collective-bargaining agreement, also effective for
a 3-year term. This agreement was in full force and effect
at all times material to this case.
District 50 Representative Wright corroborated in
material part the testimony of Trumbo as summarized
above .3 I credit the testimony of Trumbo and Wright as
recited above. Their testimony is mutually corroborative
and substantiated by the documentary evidence quoted
herein.
B. Respondent Union Pickets the Company
Trumbo testified that during early 1971 his Company
started a construction job for Texaco, Inc., which required
his employees to work at Texaco's storage tanks located in
the vicinity of the Jack Carley Causeway and the Mississippi
River in Memphis. The complaint alleges and the answer
admits that about December 1, 1971, Respondent Union
commenced picketing the Company at the site of the Texa-
co storage tanks. In addition, the complaint alleges and the
answer admits that about March 6, 1972, Respondent Un-
ion commenced picketing the Company at the bulk oil stor-
age plant of Texaco which is located on Riverside Drive in
Memphis.4 It was stipulated that the legend on the picket
sign stated:
Trumbo Co. does not meet the standards of wages,
fringe benefits and working conditions as established
in the Memphis area. Steamfitters Local No. 614,
AFL-CIO.
Trumbo testified that there was picketing most of the
time his Company was on the Texaco job; that the picket
initially patrolled "on the edge of the Jack Carley Causeway
walking backwards and forwards in front of the tanks"; that
about March 6, 1972, the Company moved and started
working at the Texaco plant located at 1235 Riverside
Drive; and that after the Company moved the picket also
moved to the front of the driveway of the plant.
James Ryan, business manager for Respondent Un-
ion,5 testified that the "picketing was on the riverside of the
Jack Carley Causeway on the closest public property to the
two tanks that [the Company] was working on at the
time . . . . [W]hen they [the Company] moved inside the
3 Wright also testified that company employee Buchanan had obtained the
signatures of other unit employees on District 50 authorization cards and that
Buchanan thereafter participated in the 1968 contract negotiations.
° Respondent , in its answer, "avers that the picketing of March 6 , 1972 was
a continuation of the picketing commenced on or about December 1, 1971."
As the credited testimony summarized infra shows, both the site of the
storage tanks and oil storage plant are part of the same construction project.
5 The complaint alleges, the answer admits , and I find and conclude that
Ryan at all times material was "an agent of Respondent, acting on its behalf,
and is an agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act"
1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant, we moved our picket around to the only entrance to
the plant, on Riverside Drive and the closest public property
to the entrance where they were going in and out to do their
work." 6
I credit the essentially undisputed testimony of Trum-
bo and Ryan recited above. The testimony of Trumbo and
Ryan stated above is mutually corroborative and substanti-
ated by the testimony of Assistant Business Agent Wilson.
C. Trumbo Telephones Ryan on January 25
and March 6, 1972
Trumbo testified that-in response to an inquiry from
a customer-he called Ryan on January 25, 1972, to ascer-
tain whether the Company "could make a contribution to
the welfare [fund] of [Respondent Union] and obtain labels
to put on materials being shipped to other places to be
erected." Ryan informed Trumbo that he had been "misin-
formed" and that "was the end of it." Trumbo asserted that
this conversation with Ryan had nothing to do with the
picketing in progress at the time.
Trumbo further testified that on March 6, 1972, he
again telephoned Ryan and this time "asked Mr. Ryan what
... the Union wanted." Ryan referred Trumbo to the legend
on the picket sign . Trumbo testified that he "asked [Ryan]
if that meant [Ryan ] was asking [Trumbo] to pay the
Union's wages or did he mean to put their men on the job
...." Ryan again said that "he would have to refer back
to the picket ... sign."',
Following this conversation, Trumbo telephoned his
attorney, Fortas. Later that same day, Trumbo again called
Ryan. This time Trumbo, according to his testimony, asked
Ryan "what their wages were in case [Trumbo] wanted to
go in that direction." Ryan, according to Trumbo, stated
"that their wages including all of their benefits ... was $7.82
an hour or something like that." Trumbo invited Ryan "to
come see" him because they were old friends. Finally,
Trumbo recalled that Ryan said that the Company's "work-
ing conditions would have to be equal or better ... than
theirs ... and I [Trumbo] told him I believe our working
conditions would supersede his working conditions because
we had real good working conditions." Ryan did not re-
spond to this last assertion.
On cross-examination, Trumbo explained his March 6
telephone conversations with Ryan as follows: "[Ryan] said
that our wages would have to meet-our fringe benefits
would have to meet-I asked him what their wages were and
he told me including benefits it was, I believe, $7.82." Trum-
bo acknowledged that Ryan did not mention what the Re-
spondent Union's specific benefits "amounted to or what
they were." Ryan, according to Trumbo, "was referring to
the fringe benefits as a total."
6 Ryan recalled that the picketing moved to the front of the plant about
February 28 , 1972. Richard Wilson , assistant business agent for Respondent,
explained , inter aba, that Respondent picketed the Company on various days
during October 1971 and January , February , and March 1972, when the
Company's employees were at the Texaco site. The last day of picketing was
March 7, 1972.
7 Trumbo recalled that Ryan also "said he [Ryan ] would have to talk to
his attorney."
Ryan, in turn, testified that Trumbo telephoned him on
January 25 and stated: "[Trumbo] had heard that he could
make a contribution to our welfare fund and get some Un-
ion labels which are used to put on pipe fabricated in one
area and shipped into another for installation ." Ryan in-
formed Trumbo that "he had been misinformed."
Ryan testified that later , during their March 6 tele-
phone conversation, Trumbo "asked what it would take to
get the picket off down at the job," and Ryan referred him
to the picket sign. Ryan testified that Trumbo then asked,
"You mean if I pay the prevailing wage rates that you will
take the picket off?", and Ryan said, "Yes." Trumbo then
asked, "What are your wage rates?", and Ryan told him that
they were "a total package of $7.82"-the "basic wage plus
fringe benefits." Ryan recalled that Trumbo "thought that's
what he would do, but never did say definitely . . . ." Ryan
recalled that Trumbo then invited Ryan and his wife to have
dinner , since Trumbo 's wife used to work with the Steam
Fitters Union some years ago .8
D. The Evidence Pertaining to Alleged Area
Standards
As noted, the hourly rate of the Company's employees
as of November 20, 1968, vaned from $1.75 to $3.40. Article
XIV of the Company's 1968-1971 contract with District 50
provided:
WAGES
All employees covered by this Agreement and em-
ployed on November 22, 1968, shall be paid effective
November 22, 1968, during the first year of this Agree-
ment a wage increase of 10 cents per hour added to
their hourly rates prior to November 22, 1968.
All employees covered by this Agreement and em-
ployed on November 22, 1969, shall be paid effective
November 22, 1969, during the second year of this
Agreement a wage increase of 10 cents per hour added
to their hourly rates prior to November 22, 1969.
All employees covered by this Agreement and em-
ployed on November 22, 1970, shall be paid effective
November 22, 1970, during the third year of this Agree-
8 The testimony of Ryan and Trumbo with respect to the January 25
conversation is essentially the same As for the March 6 conversation , accord-
ing to the testimony of Ryan, Trumbo "asked what it would take to get the
picket off"; Ryan referred Trumbo to the picket sign, Ryan told Trumbo•
"If [Trumbo ] pay[s] the prevailing wage rates [Respondent] will take the
picket off"; and Ryan also informed Trumbo that Respondent Union's
"basic wage plus fringe benefits" comes to "a total package of $7.82." (As
discussed infra, the credited evidence establishes that the prevailing area
standard and benefit rate is $7.82 per hour .) According to the testimony of
Trumbo, Trumbo repeatedly asked Ryan "what ... the Union wanted" to
remove the picket and was referred to the picket sign ; Trumbo also asked
Ryan what Respondent's wages were and Ryan informed him that wages
plus all benefits totaled $7.82 per hour; and, further, Ryan did not refer to
specific union benefits but instead "was referring to fringe benefits as a
total."
The testimony of Ryan and Trumbo pertaining to the March 6 conversa-
tion is substantially the same . However, insofar as the testimony of Trumbo
differs from the testimony of Ryan as to the March 6 conversation, I credit
Ryan . Relying on demeanor , I find and conclude that Ryan 's testimony as
substantiated by Trumbo is a more accurate and trustworthy account of what
was said on March 6, 1972.
STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 614
ment a wage increase of 10 cents per hour added to
their hourly rates prior to November 22, 1970.
It is further agreed that merit increases and bonus-
es may be granted by the Company to whomever it
wishes as it sees fit and in its exclusive discretion.9
Article XIV of the Company's 1971-1974 contract with
District 50 similarly provided:
WAGES
All employees covered by this Agreement and em-
ployed on November 23, 1971, shall be paid effective
November 23, 1971, during the first year of this Agree-
ment a wage increase of 10 cents per hour added to
their hourly rates prior to November 23, 1971, and an
additional 10 cents per hour on May 23, 1972.
All employees covered by this Agreement and em-
ployed on November 23, 1972, shall be paid effective
November 23, 1972, during the second year of this
Agreement a wage increase of 10 cents per hour added
to their hourly rates prior to November 23, 1972, and
an additional 10 cents per hour on May 23, 1973.
All employees covered by this Agreement and em-
ployed on November 23, 1973, shall be paid effective
November 23, 1973, during the third year of this Agree-
ment a wage increase of 10 cents per hour added to
their hourly rates prior to November 23, 1973, and an
additional 10 cents per hour on May 23, 1974.
It is further agreed that merit increases and bonus-
es may be granted by the Company to whomever it
wishes as it sees fit and in its exclusive discretion.1°
District 50 Representative Wright acknowledged that there
is no person employed by the Company covered under any
classification of the Union that is making as much as $7 an
hour, $6 an hour, or even $5 an hour.
Company President Trumbo described various benefits
that his employees have, as follows: "They have got profit
sharing, insurance , bonuses , privilege to participate in stock
of the Company, holidays, [and] other privileges I may
not be able to remember." Various of these benefits are
assertedly not recited in the 1968-1971 and 1971-1974 con-
tracts.ll Trumbo also testified that he could not state his
wage scale because "the wage scale varies from classifica-
tion to classification and they vary according to the man
and what he puts into his job," and, further, that Trumbo
did not "believe he could [state] the mimmum wage because
[he did not] think [the Company] had a minimum wage."
Trumbo acknowledged that he does not have any pipefitters
"making $7.82 an hour."
Respondent Union Representative Ryan testified that
his Union has negotiated many contracts with employers in
9 The contract also included provisions on, inter aba, checkoff, seniority,
hours of work and overtime, grievance procedures , holidays and vacations,
general conditions, insurance and hospitalization, and strikes and lockouts.
10 This contract also included provisions on, inter aha, checkoff , seniority,
hours of work and overtime, grievance procedures , holidays and vacations,
general conditions, insurance and hospitalization , and strikes and lockouts.
ii Trumbo generally explained his insurance program . The Company pays
half of the premiums . This plan was not offered into evidence. It apparently
includes life and accident insurance, major medical, and disability coverage.
1029
the pipefitting industry; and that the Secretary of Labor has
"set the prevailing wage rates for the different crafts in the
different counties in the United States and the Union rate
is the prevailing wage rate in Shelby County." Ryan ex-
plained that the "source" of his information pertaining to
whether or not the Company conformed to prevailing pay
and benefit standards included the "various wage reports on
the different crafts and surveys taken by private companies
... Department of Labor reports ... and it is generally
known in the building and construction industry that Dis-
trict 50 doesn't pay the building and construction ... wage
rates ...... Ryan admittedly did not know specifically what
wage rates the Company was paying its various employees
at the time the picketing commenced in this case. Ryan
admittedly never called Trumbo to ascertain this informa-
tion from him.12
Finally, Ryan testified that-in response to Trumbo's
inquiry on March 6-Ryan told Trumbo that the Company
"would have to comply with the wages and fringe benefits
and certain working conditions" in order to stop the picket-
mg. Ryan did not enumerate "these working conditions."
Ryan also testified: "What we call area standards are the
wage rates set in the county by the Department of Labor
under the Davis-Bacon Act .... The way the wage rates are
determined is by a survey made by the Department of La-
bor and if the preponderance of the work is Union scale,
then their scale is the prevailing wage rate .... This is what
we consider the prevailing wage rate and area stand-
ards." 13
E. The Evidence Pertaining to Respondent
Union's Picketing of the Humco Job
in 1970
Trumbo testified that about March 1970 his Company
had a construction job at Humco Chemical Company in
Memphis. Respondent Union picketed that job with a sign
containing the same legend used in the instant case. An
unfair labor practice charge was filed against Respondent
Union resulting in a withdrawal upon settlement.14 Trumbo
explained that, at the time , Michael Boyett was business
agent for Respondent Union and he and Boyett had a pri-
vate conversation. When asked to relate the conversation,
Trumbo could not remember what was said. Trumbo was
then shown an affidavit purportedly given to a Board agent
during the investigation of the 1970 incident. He was asked
to read a portion of the affidavit and "if that refreshes your
recollection of what transpired." At this point, Trumbo tes-
tified:
I called Boyett and asked him what he wanted to
12 Ryan recalled that "working conditions" were mentioned in his March
6 conversation with Trumbo. Ryan assertedly was referring to "safety condi-
tions on the job"; he "had been told by [his] picket that [ the] men weren't
wearing hard hats on the job ...."
Ryan also testified that he "didn 't know for sure until Mr. Trumbo told
him on March 6" that the Company had a contract with District 50. Ryan
had heard earlier that this was so but was uncertain that the District 50
contract had been renewed.
13 The testimony of Wright, Trumbo, and Ryan recited in this section is
essentially unrefuted . I credit this testimony insofar as pertinent to the issues
before me.
14 Counsel for General Counsel's request that I take official notice of Case
26-CP-42 was granted.
1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
get the picket off and I believe he told me that he would
have to talk to his attorney and that I [Trumbo] told
him that I had to get the pickets off because it was
...conflicting with another company and it was caus-
ing them very much concern and that they had called
[Trumbo] several times about it.
Trumbo could recall nothing further. He was asked to read
the affidavit again . After some delay, Trumbo explained
that he was "having trouble reading the writing." Finally,
the pertinent paragraph of the affidavit was read to Trumbo
and Trumbo asserted that his recollection was refreshed and
the language read to him was true. The affidavit stated:
I called Boyett. I asked him what he wanted me to
do to get the pickets'removed. I identified myself be-
fore asking this question. Boyett said that he could not
say what to do to get the pickets down. I asked that I
had to get them moved and someone had to tell me
what to do to get them moved. He said that their proce-
dure was for contractors to sign agreements with them
and after signing with them, they would furnish us with
labor and wage rates and conditions under which they
would furnish such. I said that I would see and be
talking to him about it. He said he was not telling me
who to work, that I could work whoever I wanted to
and that he could or had the right to picket. I said that
he was saying that he was not moving the picket until
I signed that agreement, was that right? He said that he
was not saying. I said that the only way I could take
it was that he would not remove the picket until I
signed the agreement. He did not answer this and after
a pause I said that I would be talking to him. He said,
"okay."
I do not credit Trumbo's recollection as thus refreshed.
I am not persuaded that Trumbo, having related in detail
his January and March 1972 conversations with Business
Agent Ryan, would fail to recall and remember that during
earlier picketing by the same Union he was explicitly told
by the Union's agent "to sign agreements with them" in
order to remove the pickets. I am persuaded that if in fact
an explicit demand for a contract had been made, Trum-
bo-despite his limited formal education-would have re-
membered it.15
III DISCUSSION
A. The Controlling Principles
Section 8(b)(7), enacted as part of the 1959
amendments to the Act, constitutes a comprehensive code
governing recognitional and organizational picketing. N.L.
R.B. v. Drivers, Local 369 (Curtis Bros.), 362 U.S. 274, 291
(1960). Subsection (A) of Section 8(b)(7), which is involved
herein, prohibits picketing by an uncertified union where an
object thereof is "forcing or requiring an employer to recog-
nize or bargain with a labor organization as the representa-
15 In any event , as discussed infra, assuming such a statement was in fact
made by a union representative to Trumbo in 1970 , this testimony was
offered for background purposes only (see James W. Glover, 178 NLRB 684,
685 (1969), enfd . 450 F.2d 1255 (C.A. 9, 1971) (and cases there cited) and,
consequently, does not in itself establish that the current picketing in late
1971 and early 1972 was for an organizational or recognitional object.
tive of his employees" or "forcing or requiring the employ-
ees of an employer to accept or select such labor organiza-
tion as their" representative, "where the employer has
lawfully recognized in accordance with this Act any other
labor organization and a question concerning representa-
tion may not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of
the Act." As the Board, the courts, and the commentators
have repeatedly pointed out, Section 8(b)(7) was enacted as
a corollary to the Federal policy of ensuring employees a
free choice in the selection of a bargaining representative.
See Dayton Typographical Union No. 57 v. N.L.R.B., 326
F.2d 634, 646 (C.A.D.C., 1963); Local 542, Operating Engi-
neers (R. S. Noonan, Inc.), 142 NLRB 1132 (1963), enfd. 331
F.2d 99, 107 (C.A. 3, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 889; Lebus
v. Building & Construction Trades Council of New Orleans,
199 F.Supp. 628, 631-632 (E.D. La., 1961).
However, when a union pickets an employer for the
sole purpose of compelling compliance with prevailing area
wage and benefit standards, the Board regards the picketing
activity-so-called "area standards" picketing-as nonre-
cognitional and outside the proscription of Section 8(b)(7).
See, e .g., Local 741, Plumbers (Keith Riggs Plumbing), 137
NLRB 1125, 1126-1127 (1962); Houston Building and Con-
struction Trades Council (Claude Everett Construction Co.),
136 NLRB 321, 323 (1962). The Board has reasoned, and
the courts have concurred, that a union "has a legitimate
interest apart from recognition and bargaining that employ-
ers meet prevailing pay scales and employee benefits, for
otherwise employers paying less than the prevailing wage
scales could ultimately undermine area standards." Local
741, Plumbers (Keith Riggs Plumbing), 137 NLRB 1125,
1126 (1962).
Thus, a union may attempt to ensure that an employer
"is required to pay employee costs equivalent to those paid
by the organized employer." Retail Clerks Intl Ass'n, Local
Union No. 899, 166 NLRB 818, 822-823 (1967), enfd. 404
F.2d 855 (C.A. 9, 1968). This principle, however, does not
allow a union to force , under the guise of area standards
maintenance, its collective-bargaining agreement, part and
parcel, upon employees it does not represent. See, e .g., Cen-
tralia Building and Construction Trades Council, 155 NLRB
803, 806 (1965), enfd. 363 F.2d 699, 701 (C.A.D.C., 1966);
Retail Clerks Intl Ass'n, supra; San Francisco Joint Board
Intl Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 171 NLRB
761 (1968). As pointed out in Retail Clerks Assn, supra, 166
NLRB at 823-824:
Unless the union purports to represent and bargain for
the employees of the picketed employer, what legit-
imate concern does it have insisting that such employer
have health and welfare benefits or pensions, or, in-
deed, specific benefits of any sort whatsoever, let alone
benefits equivalent to those of the represented employ-
er? Thus, it would appear reasonable that a union
might picket for wages or for equivalent costs, but
when it goes beyond this and attempts to dictate what
benefits are to be granted , it is attempting to engage in
pro tanto bargaining to gain benefits for employees
which it does not claim to represent.
Under such circumstances , acquiescing in the union's de-
mands would leave `very little ... in the field of collective
bargaining to a representative chosen by [the Company's]
STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 614
employees ...." Centralia Building & Construction Trades
Council, supra, 155 NLRB at 806.
In the instant case , Respondent Union claims that its
picketing was motivated solely by a permissible area stand-
ards object and, further, that the formal declarations of its
representatives and their picket sign are consistent with this
purported objective . But, in determining whether a union
has picketed for a proscribed object, the Board is not bound
by a union's selfserving declarations. Operative Plasterers &
Cement Masons' Local 44, 144 NLRB 1298, 1300 (1963).
Moreover, Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act applies if "an ob-
ject" of the picketing is recognition or organization. For, as
with the comparable language in Section 8(b)(4) (cf. N.L.R.
B. v. Denver Bldg. & Construction Trades Council, 341 U.S.
675, 688-689 ( 1951) ), as long as one of the union's objects
is illegal, it is immaterial that it may also have other, legit-
imate objects. See, National Packing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 377
F.2d 800, 803 (C.A. 10, 1967) Dayton Typographical Union
No. 57 v. N.L.R.B., supra, 326 F.2d at 645 (C.A.D.C., 1963).
Moreover, the Board has consistently held that one factor
to be considered in testing whether a union's picketing is
really aimed at protesting substandard wages and working
conditions is whether the union actually knows or has made
an effort to discover whether the employer's wages and
working conditions are in fact substandard. See Construc-
tion, Shipyard and General Laborers Local 1207, 141 NLRB
283, 284 (1963); Centralia Building & Construction Trade
Council, 155 NLRB 803, 806 (1965), enfd. 363 F.2d 699, 701
(C.A.D.C., 1966).
B. The Evidence of Record Pertaining
to Respondent Union's Picketing
Upon the credited evidence of record summarized
supra, I find and conclude that at all times material the
Company lawfully recognized District 50 as the
collective-bargaining representative of its employees in an
appropriate unit and a question concerning the representa-
tion of such employees may not appropriately be raised.
Thus, about October 10, 1968, District 50 apprised the Com-
pany that it had obtained valid authorization cards from a
majority of its employees in an appropriate unit. District 50
requested a meeting in order to negotiate and execute a
collective-bargaining agreement, and offered to submit the
signed authorization cards for a independent inspection. On
October 17, 1968, representatives of the Company and Dis-
trict 50 executed an agreement of recognition reciting the
events culminating in the Company's granting of recogni-
tion to District 50. As stated therein, District 50 had ob-
tained signed authorizations from 30 of the 42 employees in
the requested unit. The credited testimony of the Company
and District 50 representatives substantiates this recital.
Shortly thereafter, on November 22, 1968, the Company
and District 50 representatives executed a collective-bar-
gaining agreement, effective for a 3-year term. And, on
November 23, 1971, Company and District 50 representa-
tives again executed a 3-year collective-bargaining agree-
ment, which agreement has been in operation at all times
material to this case.
Accordingly, the Company lawfully recognized Dis-
trict 50 in accordance with the Act and a question concern-
1031
ing representation may not appropriately be raised under
Section 9(c) of the Act. And, it is undisputed and I find and
conclude that Respondent Union is not currently certified
as the bargaining representative of such employees. In addi-
tion, I find and conclude from the uncontroverted evidence
of record that Respondent Union picketed the Company
while performing construction work for Texaco at various
sites in the Memphis area. The picketing occurred on vari-
ous days in October 1971 and in January, February, and
March 1972. The last day of picketing was March 7. The
picket carried a sign which stated:
Trumbo Co. does not meet the standards of wages,
fringe benefits, and working conditions as established
in the Memphis area. Steamfitters Local 614, AFL-
CIO.
The principal question remaining is whether the record suf-
ficiently establishes that an object of this picketing was for
recognition or organization.
The credited testimony of Respondent Business Agent
Ryan establishes that the prevailing area wage and benefit
standards total $7.82 per hour, which amount is the same as
Respondent Union's rate. Ryan also credibly testified that
he believed the Company was not meeting the prevailing
wage scale and employee benefits based upon wage reports
for the different crafts and surveys taken by private compa-
nies, Department of Labor reports and, in addition, com-
mon knowledge in the industry that District 50 does not
meet its scale. Ryan's testimony in this respect is substanti-
ated in part by District 50's 1968-1971 and 1971-1974 con-
tracts with the Company. The hourly wage rates paid to the
Company's unit employees as of November 20, 1968, range
from $1.75 to $3.40. The annual 10-cent hourly increases
provided for in the 1968 contract fall far short of raising the
unit employees' wage rates to Respondent Union's prevail-
ing wage and employee benefits of $7.82 per hour. More-
over, District 50 Representative Wright acknowledged that
no Company employee is "making as much as" $7, $6 or
even $5 "an hour." And Trumbo acknowledged that his
Company has no minimum wage; that wages "vary accord-
ing to the man"; and that his Company has no pipefitters
"making $7.82 per hour."16
Accordingly, I find and conclude that when Respon-
dent Union commenced picketing the Company, it had suf-
ficient reason to believe that the Company was not meeting
area standards. Respondent Union's picket sign asserted
that the Company "does not meet the standards of wages,
fringe benefits and working conditions as established in the
Memphis area." The legend on this sign is, under the cir-
cumstances, fully consistent with Respondent Union's
claimed purpose for picketing the Company- i.e., "area
standards" picketing. Counsel for General Counsel argues
that the picket sign is "not just for area standards" because
the words "working conditions [are] set forth on its face."
However, I do not regard the language of this picket sign as
establishing an organizational or recognitional object or,
additionally, being inconsistent in any material way with
Respondent's asserted "area standards" purpose in picket-
ing the Company. Counsel for the General Counsel also
16 Trumbo's general references in his testimony to various company bene-
fits do not establish that the Company's benefits in fact meet area standards.
1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
argues that Ryan's failure or unwillingness to call the Com-
pany and ascertain directly from Trumbo what he was pay-
ing discredits the Union's asserted "area standards"
purpose for picketing the Company. However, as shown,
Respondent Union had reasonable basis to believe, without
initiating direct contact with management, that the Compa-
ny was not meeting prevailing wages and employee benefits.
Further, Counsel for General Counsel argues that
Ryan, in response to Trumbo's inquiry on March 6, was
asking in effect for specific "working conditions," which
would assertedly establish an unlawful organizational or
recognitional object. As shown above, the credited evidence
establishes that Ryan did not request "specific benefits,"
but was instead asking for prevailing "wages or for equiva-
lent costs." Retail Clerks, supra Thus, Trumbo admitted
that Ryan repeatedly referred him to the picket sign when
Trumbo asked Ryan what the Respondent Union wanted.
Trumbo admitted that Ryan did not mention specific Un-
ion benefits but referred to the Union's scale of $7.82 as a
total. And, Ryan credibly testified that he simply explained
to Trumbo, in answer to Trumbo's inquiry, that if the Com-
pany paid the prevailing wage rates, the picketing would
stop. Ryan further explained to Trumbo that the "total
package" was $7.82. Accordingly, on the entire record be-
fore me, I find and conclude that General Counsel has
failed to establish an organizational or recognitional object
as alleged."
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Trumbo Welding and Fabricating Company, the
Charging Party, is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Steamfitters Local Union No. 614,
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States
and Canada, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Union is not currently certified as the
bargaining representative of the Charging Party's employ-
ees.
4. International Union of District 50, Allied and Tech-
nical Workers of the United States and Canada, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Sections 2(5) and
8(b)(7)(A) of the Act.
5. At all times material, the Charging Party Company
has, in accordance with the Act, lawfully recognized said
District 50 as the representative of the employees of the
Company for collective-bargaining purposes, and a ques-
tion concerning the representation of such employees may
not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act.
6. The General Counsel has not shown by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that Respondent Union picketed the
Charging Party Company for an organizational or recogni-
tional object, or is committing any unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint.
17 Counsel for General Counsel cites Painters Local 272, etc. (Charles R.
Curtiss), 183 NLRB No. 89 (1971 ) in support of its contention . The facts in
that case are inapposite here Thus , for example, as the Trial Examiner noted,
"we find the alleged unlawful picketing taking place against a background
of continuing efforts by Respondent to make Curtiss a union contractor, with
any so-called "union hassle" arising therefrom having twice been resolved by
the recognitional route ." Likewise , in San Francisco Joint Board, ILGWU
(Romay of California), 171 NLRB 761 (1968), "There is evidence that an
object of Respondent's conduct was to secure a contract from Romay " In
that case, the Trial Examiner noted that "an object of Respondent , contrary
to that which it proclaimed, was to require and maintain those employment
terms and conditions which were set forth in the contracts of the Respondent
with other" area employers-i.e., specific wage rates, a 35-hour week, a
grievance procedure, and related contractual provisions.
RECOMMENDED ORDER 18
I recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety.
18 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and order , and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes