Centralia Building and Construction Trades Coun. v. NLRB

• Decision Date: 30 June 1966
• Docket Number: No. 19807.,19807.
• Citation: 363 F.2d 699,124 US App. DC 212
• Parties: CENTRALIA BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

124 US App. DC 212, 363 F.2d 699 (1966)

CENTRALIA BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 19807.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued June 7, 1966.

Decided June 30, 1966.

Mr. Thomas X. Dunn, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Louis Sherman, Washington, D. C., and Hugh Hafer, Seattle, Wash., were on the brief, for petitioner.

Mr. Malcolm D. Schultz, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, of the bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Assistant General Counsel, and Gary Green, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, were on the brief, for respondent.

Before DANAHER, WRIGHT and TAMM, Circuit Judges.

DANAHER, Circuit Judge:

The petitioner has asked this court to set aside the Board's decision and order¹ which had adopted the trial examiner's findings, conclusions and recommendations. Concededly, there is no dispute as to the facts, and our only question is whether or not the Board erred as a matter of law in concluding that petitioner had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act.²

On January 12, 1965, Pacific Sign & Steel Building Co. (herein, Pacific), was engaged in construction work at Chehalis, Washington, when the petitioner began picketing the site while employees of Pacific were on the job. Petitioner picketed Pacific for more than 30 days without filing a petition under section 9(c) of the Act. Petitioner was not then and is not now the certified representative of Pacific's employees. Work stoppages occurred. Petitioner contended that an object of its picketing was to require Pacific to execute an instrument entitled "Settlement Agreement," which would have required Pacific to pay to its building and construction employees wages and fringe benefits equal to such allowances then being received by comparable employees working under the Union Agreement. If petitioner's industry agreements were so negotiated as to provide increases or decreases, Pacific's total "economic package" was to be increased or decreased by an equivalent amount. Petitioner in its proposed agreement would have caused Pacific to permit the petitioner or its accountants to make monthly inspection of Pacific's records of the economic benefits then being accorded to Pacific's employees. Petitioner further offered to agree that its picketing of Pacific would cease and not be resumed during the period of the agreement which was subject to termination by either party upon ten days' notice.

The proposed settlement agreement was served upon Pacific with a covering letter in which the petitioner pointed out that unless Pacific was willing to meet union standards, petitioner would have "no choice but to publish the fact that Pacific's employees are working for wages which are less than, and under conditions which are inferior to union wages and conditions."

Petitioner's letter, it was stated, was "not to be construed as a request for recognition." Pacific rejected the proposed agreement, and when picketing continued, Pacific filed unfair labor practice charges.

We regard it as settled that a union legitimately may be concerned that some employer is undermining area standards of employment by maintaining lower standards.³ The Board itself has recognized⁴ that no unfair labor practice occurs when a union engages in picketing which has for its sole object truthfully advising the public that some employer is operating under substandard working conditions.

Here, however, the Board, taking account of all circumstances, adopted its trial examiner's findings that an object of the union's picketing of Pacific was recognitional. The petitioner had commenced picketing of Pacific without making prior effort to...