TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices 141
mine whether oi not a union's stiike or other conduct had as an object
the compelling of an employer to entei into a proscribed type of
agreement In each of these cases, the Board found that certain
contract clauses sought were unlawful under section 8(e) , 89 and therefoie
the union's conduct was foi bidden by section 8(b) (4) (i) and
(ii) (A)
e. Strikes for Recognition Against Certification
Uncle' subsection (C) of section 8(b) (4), a labor organization is
forbidden to exert the proscribed types of pressure for the purpose of
forcing "any employer to recognize or bargain with a particular labor
organization as the representative of his employees if another labor
organization has been certified as the repiesentative of such
employees"
(1) "Area Standards" Picketing
After the end of fiscal 1961, a majority of the Board, on reconsideration
of a prior decision 9° which found so-called ,tarea standard"
picketing violative of section 8(b) (4) (C), held that such picketing
was lawful under the particular circumstances involved i" In
the later decision, a union's admitted objective to require the employer
and his employer association to conform to standards of employment
prevailing in the area was held not to be tantamount to,
nor having the objective of, recognition or bargaining The majority
stated as follows •
A union may legitimately be concerned that a particular employer is undermining
area standards of employment by maintaining lower standards It may
be willing to forego recognition and bargaining provided subnormal working
conditions are eliminated from area considerations We are of the opinion that
Section 8( b) (4) (C) does not forbid such an objective
It may be argued—with some justification—that picketing by an outside union
when another union has newly won Board certification is an unwarianted
harassment of the picketed employer But this is an argument that must be
addressed to Congress Section 8(b) (4) (C), as we read it, does not contain a
broad proscription against all types of picketing It forbids only picketing with
the objective of obtaining "recognition and bargaining" On the record before
us, Respondent clearly disclaimed such an objective and sought only to eliminate
subnormal working conditions from area considerations As this objective could
be achieved without the Employer either bargaining with or recognizing Respondent,
we cannot reasonably conclude that Respondent's objective in picketing
[the Employer] was to obtain "recognition or bargaining" [Footnote omitted ]
In the only other section 8(b) (4) (C) case decided during the past
fiscal year, the Board adopted the trial examiner's finding that the re-
" T h Is phase of the cases is discussed belon, pp 142-145
90 Internatsonal Hod Carriers, eta, Local 41 (Calumet Contractot s Associatson), 110
NLRB 78
P, 133 NLRB No 57 (Oct 2, 1961), Members Rodger'. and Leedom dissenting