TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

150 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
scope and meaning of this proviso relatmg to so-called informational
picketing In this case, the union picketed a new cafeteria which had
refused to hire through the union hiring hall or to sign a contract.
The picket signs were addressed to "members of organized labor and
their friends," stated that the cafeteria was "nonunion," and asked
them not to patronize it No stoppage of deliveries or services took
place A majority of the Board held that this picketing was for recognition
purposes and was not protected by the proviso The proviso,
in the majority's view, was added only to make clear that purely
informational picketing-1 e, picketing which publicizes the lack of
a union contract or the lack of union organization, and which has no
present object of recognition—should not be curtailed where no stoppages
occur But here, the majority noted, the union was in fact demanding
present recognition from the picketed employer Congress'
intention to outlaw recognition and organization picketing, stated the
majority, "is best effectuated by confining the second proviso of
8(b) (7) (C) to picketing where the sole object is dissemination of
information divorced fiorn a present object of recognition " 19
In Stork Reetaurant," the Board held that—assuming the union's
picketing after a certain date 21 was informational—certain stoppages
were not "so isolated or minor" as to afford the union the protection
of the second proviso, "even assuming arguendo that 'isolated' interferences
with deliveries do not make informational picketing unlawful"
The stoppages here took the form of five refusals by drivers to
cross the picket line in a 7-day period Furthermore, as pointed out
by the Board, the conduct of the drivers was shown to be "illustrative"
rather than "isolated," the employer having been picketed continuously
for about 3 years with resultant serious mterference with
deliveries
b. Legality of Objective
A majority of the Board held in the Cartage case 22 that a union
violated section 8(b) (7) (C) by picketing a trucking employer with
an object of forcing the latter to employ certain union members, who
had been employed by a predecessor company, and to discharge the
new employees whom this employer had hired to perform the same
work The union argued that no recognition dispute was involved
inasmuch as the employer had offered to recognize the union for the
19 The dissenting Members were of the opinion, however, that by the proviso Congress
intended "to exclude from the ban picketing which while it embraced the proscribed object
of recognition or organisation" met the "two specific conditions" of the proviso See footnote
14, above
1 q0 NLRB 543
a The Board held that the picketing for 2 months prior to this date was clearly violative
of sec 8(b) (7) (C), and that a remedial order was thereby warranted, regardless of the
status of the picketing thereafter
U Local 706 Teamsters (Cartage d Terminal management Corp ), 180 NLRB 558, Member
Kimball dissenting on the ground that the dispute fell within sec 8(b) (4) (D) rather than
8(b) (7) (C)