Court Opinion

ID: 9466031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:03:48.77514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:30.353156
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, a majority of the three-person panel of the National Labor Relations Board has rewritten § 8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., to suit their own fancy, which happens to be a dislike of picketing which has as its objective the maintenance of Union standards in an area. Unfortunately, this Court now accepts the views of the panel; and, in the process, expands § 8(b)(7)(C) unjustifiably.
In my view, Member Jenkins’ dissent is correct and should be followed. He states:
While it is clear that [the Union] initially sought to be recognized by the Employer as the bargaining agent for its employees, it is apparent that this original objective was influenced by two factors. First, Section 8(f) of the Act authorizes the execution of bargaining agreements between a labor organization and an employer engaged in the building and construction industry without a showing of majority status on the part of the labor organization. Consequently, it is *1101clear that the statutory framework naturally invites recognition requests from labor organizations directed toward employers of the type involved herein. Further, in response to [the Union’s] initial recognition request made in 1974, the Employer expressly stated that at some point in the future it would be willing to voluntarily reach a bargaining agreement with [the Union]. When viewed in this light it is plain that the casual inquiry made of the Employer in July 1976 hardly constitutes the opening salvo of a full-fledged organizational or recognitional drive about to be launched by [the Union]. When its inquiry met with a negative response, [the Union], on August 9, unequivocally disavowed any interest in seeking recognition from the Employer. * * * [A] reading of [the August 9] letter as a whole serves to dispel any recognitional aura surrounding the use of the terms “working conditions” or “mutual agreement.” Specifically, [the Union] noted that the Employer’s lower “total labor cost” allowed it to underbid contractors whose employees had been organized, and that this adversely affected organized workers. * * *
While it is true that this Board carefully scrutinizes the true intent behind purported area standards picketing and considers events which precede as well as those which accompany picketing, there is no presumption that picketing, which on the surface is aimed solely at an area standards object, is nevertheless for a prohibited object solely due to a previous recognitional interest, absent substantial independent evidence to support such a presumption. In this case, no such independent evidence exists indicating that [the Union] continued to entertain a prohibited objective during the picketing. As shown above, the words used in the area standards letter were consistent with an exclusive area standards concern. Furthermore, there is no showing that [the Union] alternatively used one, then another, objective depending on the tactics it desired to employ momentarily. The only time [the Union] disavowed one objective and advocated another was on the occasion of the August 9 letter. Thereafter, the record is totally devoid of any attempts on the part of [the Union] or the pickets to intersperse the manifest area standards objective with a recogni-tional or organizational message. The picket signs used merely informed the public that the Employer did not pay union wages and conditions, a phrase which again clearly refers solely to economic terms. It is therefore clear that the [Union] closely adhered to a limited object that the Employer meet area standards. [Emphasis included.]
The Board’s majority finding, that the Union’s use of the terms “working conditions” and “Union conditions” import a meaning to the Union’s request which implied a demand that the Company adopt the terms of the union collective bargaining agreement executed with other area employees, is drawn out of thin air and Heald’s testimony provides no support for it. Heald made it clear that the Union’s concern was that the picketed Company meet the monetary benefits in the Union contract, so that they would not be able to compete unfairly with Union contractors and, thus, take work away from their employees. Such a concern is a proper one. No unfair labor practice occurs when a union engages in picketing which has, for its sole object, truthfully advised the public that some employer is operating under substandard working conditions. Centralia Building and Construction Trades Coun. v. N. L. R. B., 124 U.S. App.D.C. 212, 363 F.2d 699 (D.C.Cir. 1966).