TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Injunction Litigation 203
Board election In most cases under this subsection, the union contended
that its postelection picketing was for a ieason other than
ecognition or oiganization For example, in Irvin 9,82 aftei losing
a Board election under the expedited procedures of subsection (C)
(see below, p 205), the union wrote the employer that it was no longer
picketing for recognition and "will not accept recognition until the
majority of the employees indicate their desire to be represented by
our Union," but that it intended to continue picketing to publicize the
employer s unfair litho' practices—which had been settled with the
approval of the union prior to the election—and the fact that its employees
were not represented by respondent Thereafter the union
changed its picket signs to appeal to the public to withhold pationage
from the employees because "This is a Non Union Stole Irvins Opposes
Unions for its Employees" No reference was made to any
alleged unfair labor practices The union's business agent admitted
that in order to seem e removal of the pickets the employer would
have to afford the union an opportunity to "address the employees"
The court, "from the totality of its conduct" befoi e Ad after the election,
rejected the contention that the union picketing after the election
was in protest of the employei's unfair labor pi actices and concluded
that it continued to have a iecognition or organization objective and
enjoined it as violative of section 8(b) (7) (B) On appeal the Foul th
Circuit 83 sustained the injunction and the district court's findings
iegardmg object In doing so, the court of appeals especially noted
that the picket signs made no reference to unfair laboi practices by the
employer, "It only told readers that the Union had not been recognized,
which is the purpose the court found the picketing to serve"
In Bachman Furniture," in a, similar factual situation, the coui t
issued an injunction where the union picketed after the election with
signs stating that "Bachman's Admit Unfair Labor Practices" and
"Unfair Labor Practices Violate Fedei al Law ," although the employer's
alleged unfair labor practices had been settled with the union's
approval Reciting the evidence indicating the union's active
interest in recognition up to the time of the picketing and its failure
to picket in protest of the alleged unfair labor practices when they
occurred 2 months before, the court stated, "If pal tics ale to be judged
merely by their professions independently of the totality of their
actions, the goal of the Congiess that there be a period of fieeclom
from organizational picketing after a 1 alid election will never be
achieved"
M Pena° v Retail Store Employes Local Union No 692 ow+ Inc), 185 F Sti pp 192
(DC Md ) Accord 134 NLRB No 51
287 F 2d509
84 Cavera V Teamsters "General" Local No 200 etc (Buchman Furniture), 183 Supp
184 (D CE WI.) Contra 134 NLRB No 54