Construction & General Laborers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 397 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL LABORERS
Construction & General Laborers Local Union 1290
(Walters Foundations , Inc.) and James R. Willard,
Attorney . Case 17-CP-129
April 30, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
On August 21, 1972, Administrative Law Judge I
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel and the
Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, to the
extent consistent herewith, and to adopt his recom-
mended Order.
As grounds for dismissing the complaint in its en-
tirety, the Administrative Law Judge found: (a) That
the General Counsel had failed to establish by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence that the Respondent's
picketing violated the Act, and (b) that even assuming
the picketing was for the proscribed recognitional and
organizational objects alleged in the complaint, it did
not, in any event, exceed a reasonable period of time
not to exceed 30 days from the commencement of
such picketing, as provided in Section 8(b)(7)(C) of
the Act. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge
that ground (b) alone constitutes a sufficient basis for
dismissing the instant complaint? Accordingly, we
hereby dismiss the complaint on that basis alone, and
without passing upon the Administrative Law Judge's
rulings, findings, and conclusions in regard to ground
(a).
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
i The title of "Trial Examiner " was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972
2 See District 65, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO
(Eastern Camera & Photo Corp), 141 NLRB 991 : Culinary Workers, Cooks,
Bartenders and Hotel-Motel Service Employees, Local, No 62, Hotel-Restau-
rant Employees and Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO ( Tropics Enter-
prises, Inc, d/b/a Tropicana Lodge), 172 NLRB 419
397
orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed in its entirety.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Trial Examiner: This case I was
heard at Kansas City, Missouri, on May 31, 1972,2 pursuant
to a charge filed by James R. Willard, Attorney, on March
28 and a complaint issued on April 20:
The complaint alleges that the Construction & General
Laborers Local Union 1290 (herein referred to as the Re-
spondent), violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, as amended (herein referred to as the
Act), by picketing or causing to be picketed two construc-
tion jobsites with objects of forcing and requiring Walters
Foundations, Inc. (herein referred to as the Company), to
recognize or bargain with Respondent as the collective-
bargaining representative of certain of the Company's em-
ployees or to force those employees to accept or select
Respondent or another labor organization as their collec-
tive-bargaining representative.
Respondent in its answer filed on April 25, while admit-
ting it engaged in certain picketing against the Company
which it contended was lawful, denied having violated the
Act.
The parties at the hearing were afforded full opportunity
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-exam-
ine witnesses, to argue orally on the record, and to submit
briefs.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses , and after due consideration of the
briefs filed by the Charging Party and Respondent,3 I here-
by make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Walters Foundations , Inc., with its principal office and
place of business located at Paola , Kansas, is engaged in
business as a foundation subcontractor. During the course
of its operations the Company annually performs services
valued in excess of $50,000 for customers located in the
State of Kansas, each of which customers annually purchas-
es goods or services valued in excess of $50 ,000 from direct-
ly outside the State of Kansas.
Respondent admits and I find that the Company is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act."
i The appearance by Attorney Robert L. Uhlig on behalf of the firm of
Blake & Uhlig as counsel for Respondent was made at the time briefs were
submitted
2 All the dates referred to are in 1972 unless otherwise stated.
J General Counsel did not submit a brief.
° Respondent orally amended its answer admitting the jurisdictional alle-
gations contained in the complaint.
203 NLRB No. 67
398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits, and I find , that it is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and the Picketing
Huckleberry Homes, Inc., a custom homebuilder was
constructing homes in the Havencroft subdivision (herein
referred to as the Havencroft jobsite) located at Olathe,
Kansas. During early 1972 the Company which had previ-
ously performed work for Huckleberry Homes , Inc., was
performing foundation construction work for it on the Ha-
vencroft jobsite. The Company was also putting in a foun-
dation and building a house for Frank Kamin (herein
referred to as the Kamin jobsite, located on Highway 7 in
the vicinity of Olathe, Kansas.
Respondent, which was neither certified to represent the
Company's employees nor had ever filed a petition with the
National Labor Relations Board seeking to represent them,
picketed both jobsites at the areas where the Company's
employees were working. The caption displayed on the
picket signs was as follows:
Walters
Breaking Down Established
Working Conditions
Labors
L. U. 1290
AFL-CIO
The picketing on the Havencroft jobsite began on Febru-
ary 22 and continued until March 14 at which time the
picketing was enjoined by a State court pursuant to an
action brought by Huckleberry Homes, Inc s The picketing
at the Kaminjobsite began on or about March 7 and contin-
ued until March 14.6
Although the injunction was lifted on the Havencroft
jobsite on March 15 and work was performed by the Com-
pany on that jobsite as well as the Kaminjobsite subsequent
to March 14, no further picketing occurred.'
Following cessation of the picketing the two men who
had engaged in the picketing were observed on various oc-
casions either on the Kamin jobsite as late as March 18 or
the Havencroft jobsite up until March 23. On those occa-
sions at the Havencroft jobsite they were either observed
driving vehicles through the jobsite or sitting at various
locations a considerable distance from but within sight of
the areas where the Company's employees were working.
S The parties stipulated the dates of the picketing on the Havencroft job-
site.
6 The March 14 date is based on the testimony of Respondent Business
Manager Joseph Rider. Although Company President Daniel Walters testi-
fied the picketing continued at the Kamin jobsite until March 18, he admitted
he didn' t see the picket sign being carried on that date or see the man who
had been picketing with a picket sign.
r While the record indicates a United States District Court issued a tempo-
rary injunction enjoining picketing following a hearing held on April 26, this
matter was not fully established by the record
On the Kaminjobsite the former picket was observed sitting
at an undefined location. No picket signs were observed or
displayed at either jobsite and other than merely being pre-
sent on the jobsites the former pickets were not engaged in
any conduct associated with the prior picketing. According
to Company President Walters who testified without objec-
tion, during the actual picketing and the period following
the picketing while the former pickets were at the jobsites
the concrete companies, namely, Mo-Kan and Olathe
Ready-Mix, refused to delivery concrete to the jobsite.8 No
representatives of these companies testified and there is no
evidence deliveries were actually attempted to be made at
the jobsites.
B. The Object of Respondent's Picketing
Respondent Business Manager Rider who authorized
picketing the Company's jobsites testified the purpose of the
picketing was to protest the Company's breaking down the
working conditions in the area by paying its employees less
than the negotiated area wages and fringe benefits . Reports
of this nature had been received from members. The parties
stipulated the Company's employees were paid rates lower
than those contained in Respondent's collective-bargaining
agreements with other area employers.
The following evidence was offered to establish the ob-
jects of Respondent's picketing were for recognition and
organizational purposes rather than to protest the
Company's failure to meet area standards as Respondent
contended.
On the day after the picketing began on the Havencroft
jobsite, Paul Young, a former employee of the Company
who was at the jobsite in connection with working for an-
other contractor, approached the area where the Company's
employees were working. Company President Walters testi-
fied Young,9 after informing him the hall had sent him out,
stated they had been warned before and wouldn't pour any
concrete and a banner (picket) would be placed on the job
in 5 minutes . Young, after being ordered by Walters to
leave, left but returned a few minutes later followed by one
of the pickets in his truck who got out and began picketing
the work area . Young informed Walters they were under-
bidding people which wouldn't be put up with, that people
had been hired to check their jobs, and that Huckleberry
Homes, Inc., would get tired of waiting and be forced to
replace them. According to Walters, Young also told him
they had to pay scale and join the Union and the Company
would not be able to win if they went to court over the
picketing. In response to Walters' question, Young in-
formed him he was being paid a certain amount to pick-
et 10
Respondent Business Manager Rider denied that Paul
Young, who was a member of Respondent, held any office
or position with Respondent or had been engaged as a
picket or paid by Respondent. Respondent Secretary-Trea-
surer and Field Representative James Everhart stated he
9 Concrete deliveries were made to the Company for a day and a half
following service of the state court injunction.
9 According to President Walters, in October 1971 Young had threatened
to gicket another jobsite, however, the job was never picketed
There was no evidence Young picketed the jobsites involved
CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL LABORERS
had asked Paul Young, who he saw at the Havencroft job-
site and knew had previously worked for the Company, to
find out whether the Company was performing work at a
certain area on thejobsite because the pickup truck parked
there did not have a sign on it." Although Young reported
the Company was working there Everhart was not aware of
any conversation Young may have had with any of the
Company's officials . While Young did not testify at the
hearing in the testimony stipulated to which he would testify
if called as a witness , Young corroborated Everhart's ver-
sion of the incident . According to Young, while talking to
Walters which conversation he did not report to Everhart,
he had asked Walters whether he was a union contractor
and, upon Walters ' reply he wasn ' t mentioned he bet Wal-
ters would get a banner on his job before it was completed.
Young who later observed the jobsite being picketed denied
either holding any position with or picketing for Respon-
dent. Assuming Young made the statements attributed to
hfim by Walters, I do not find the evidence sufficient to hold
Respondent liable for such statements Young did not hold
any position with Respondent except being a member and
at jio time did he engage in the picketing . His limited pur-
pcse as requested by Everhart was to ascertain whether the
Company, which was already being picketed at the Haven-
croftjobsite, was working at a particular area . This request
alone cannot reasonably be construed either as a delegation
of authority to appoint Young as Respondent's spokesman
or hold it responsible under any agency theory for his con-
duct.12 Further no evidence was offered to establish Young
had knowledge of Respondent's object in picketing the
Company. Therefore, I do not find Respondent was respon-
sible for such statements if made by Young. Richard Ad-
ams, an attorney who formerly represented the Company,
testified that on March 6 he went to Respondent's hall in
connection with the picketing at the Havencroft jobsite and
asked to speak to one of Respondent's officers . An unidenti-
fied man who said he was an officer informed him he wasn't
handling the matter but would have someone , probably Mr.
Reinhold from Topeka, call him. Adams left his card con-
taining his telephone number . Later that day Adams re-
ceived a telephone call at his office from someone
identifying himself as an officer of Respondent located in
Kansas City, who asked him if he represented the Company
and said he had seen his card. Although Adams testified he
believed the person gave his name as Mr . Boylan , his notes
made at the time do not list the name Boylan but only those
of Balin , Barbivan , and Barivan . When Adams mentioned
he was expecting someone from Topeka to call him the
caller 's response was he would handle it . Adams then asked
the caller what he wanted . He replied they wanted $5.71 an
hour and 48 cents in fringes and for them to sign up. When
Adams inquired what the caller wanted signed he replied he
would send him an agreement and a joinder agreement.
Both stated they wanted to avoid problems.
11 Company President Walters acknowledged all of the Company 's trucks
were not marked with identifying signs and that he himself had taken signs
off of his own truck to make it harder for Respondent to spot
iz Under Sec 13 of the Act in determining agency , the question of whether
specific acts performed were either authorized or subsequently ratified is not
controlling.
399
The following morning Adams received in the mail blank
copies of a monthly remittance report for the Laborers-
Fringe Benefits Program ; the joint agreement between the
Builders Association of Kansas City, Missouri , and Local
Unions Numbers 264, 1290, and 555 of the Western Missou-
ri and Kansas Laborers' District Council affiliated with the
Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-
CIO; and a Laborers contract stipulation which included
the names of Local Nos. 264, 555, and 1290 of the Kansas
City Laborers District Council of the International Hod
Carriers Building and Common Laborers Union of Amen-
ca, AFL-CIO. The envelope in which the documents were
received was apparently destroyed.
Respondent President Leo Boylan denied ever having a
conversation with or mailing any documents to an attorney
named Richard Adams or anyone else claiming to represent
the Company. Respondent Business Manager Rider testi-
fied without contradiction that whenever copies of joint
agreements and contract stipulations , which are available at
Respondent's offices , are mailed out they are always dated
and signed by him before being sent . As previously noted
the documents received by Adams were blank and the docu-
ments themselves indicate they also apply to use by local
unions other than Respondent.
Under these circumstances , including Attorney Adams'
failure to identify those persons with whom he spoke , Presi-
dent Boylan 's denial he made such a telephone call or
mailed the documents, and Business Manager Rider's unre-
futed testimony such documents when mailed by Respon-
dent are signed and dated by him whereas those here were
blank and in addition used by local unions other than Re-
spondent , I find the evidence insufficient to establish
Respondent 's representatives either made such a telephone
call or mailed the documents to Adams.
George Logan , Who is secretary and business consultant
for the Company, on direct examination testified that on
March 23 he contacted Respondent Business Manager Rid-
er by telephone inquiring what they should do to have the
picket removed. Rider, after suggesting having a meeting
with himself and two other unidentified agents, told him
they were going to need union carpenters and drivers. When
Logan indicated the Company had five trucks , Rider stated
he would need one union driver and carpenter but a laborer
could be used to drive materials or equipment from one job
to another . Rider then stated if they signed up with them
they would be protected mentioning he had 21 counties in
Kansas. When Logan inquired whether they would be able
to work in Lawrence and Topeka without any trouble if they
signed up , Rider's response was he wouldn't have any trou-
ble in Leavenworth and Shawnee Counties although they
weren 't in his jurisdiction . 13 Rider mentioned the Company
had performed work in Joplin and stated he could give them
the same protection in Missouri and get crews to work for
them there although the wage scales were different. Rider
further stated he could give them protection as far as the
drivers and carpenters were concerned because of the
weight he carried with them . Under cross-examination how-
ever , Logan acknowledged he could not recall the exact
sequence of the conversation although he had made notes.
13 Lawrence is in Douglas County
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When confronted with his testimony previously given in the
Federal District Court proceeding Logan admitted in relat-
ing his conversation with Rider he had only stated Rider
had said he was going to need carpenters and drivers as well
as laborers but made no mention of their being union. Al-
though Logan now claims he was quite positive Rider used
the word union, this assertion was based on a review of his
notes which weren't produced at the hearing and not neces-
sarily on his own independent recollection. Logan also ac-
knowledged under cross-examination Rider did not
mention picketing or any condition under which pickets
would be removed. Further on cross-examination Logan
admitted he had asked Rider what territory he covered and
whether they would be protected in Lawrence and Topeka
if they signed up.
William Young, who is associated with the firm of George
H. Logan and Associates and testified he listened in on the
telephone conversation at the request of George Logan,
stated after Logan had asked Rider what he wanted them
to do Rider suggested they have a meeting and he would
bring a couple of his agents with him. Rider stated they were
not trying to work a hardship on the Company. After
Logan in response to Rider's question replied the Company
had five trucks, Rider stated they would need one union
driver, one union carpenter, and the rest could be union
laborers but gave an example whereby it would be permissi-
ble to permit a laborer to drive. Logan specifically asked
about Lawrence and Topeka whether Rider stated he had
jurisdiction in 21 counties but not in Shawnee or Leaven-
worth Counties. However, he stated they wouldn't have
trouble in those areas because he carried enough weight
where there would be no problem as long as they stayed off
commercial construction. Rider mentioned the Company
had performed work in the Parsons area and Logan agreed.
Rider then pointed out the wage scale in the southern area
was different than in the Wyandotte-Johnson county area,
but stated they could help him by getting crews from that
area when working there.
Although Logan and Young each made seperate notes
during the conversation, then compared notes, and con-
densed them into one set of notes, Young in his testimony
did not corroborate Logan's testimony concerning Rider's
references to the Company' s signing up with Respondent
and under cross-examination admitted he did not recall the
word "protection" being used during the conversation.
Business Manager Rider's version of the conversation
was Logan requested a meeting whereupon he suggested a
date. After remarking he had attended a meeting held the
previous night in Pittsburg where some contractors had
mentioned the Company,14 he asked Logan what areas he
wanted to discuss since he had six agents working in differ-
ent areas. When Logan replied Olathe, Lawrence, and
Topeka he informed him he only covered 21 counties in
Kansas which didn't include Topeka. He denied Leaven-
worth was mentioned. Logan asked who performed base-
ment foundation work whereupon Rider replied carpenters,
laborers, and truckdrivers who worked together as a com-
posite crew but informed him he could only speak for the
14 George Logan acknowledged Rider had mentioned the Pittsburg meet-
ing
laborers. Rider denied he had brought up the other crafts
or told Logan he would give him protection or that the
picketing was discussed Further Logan didn't tell him the
number of trucks which the Company had
Respondent Secretary-Treasurer and Field Representa-
tive James Everhart who listened in on the telephone con-
versation between Rider and Logan corroborated Rider's
testimony that Logan requested the meeting and brought
the subject of who would be involved in the foundation
crew. He denied anything was said about signing a contract,
picketing, or the specific number of trucks which the Com-
pany possessed.
Rider and Everhart both denied and Logan and Young
both admitted that during the conversation the Company
was not told it either had to sign a contract, use union
employees, or that the Company's employees had to be-
come union members. Neither did Rider request Logan to,
recognize Respondent as the bargaining representative of/
the Company's employees. Although the conversation end-
ed with Logan stating he would contact Walters and then
get in touch with Rider, Logan did not do so.
Based on a consideration of the testimony of each of t!--
four witnesses, I do not find sufficient credible evidence to
establish that Rider made statements to the effect the pick-
ets would be removed if the Company used union employ-
ees or that if the Company signed up with Respondent it
would be protected as Logan alleged. In making this finding
which is consistent with the testimony of both Rider and
Everhart,15 I note that Young failed to corroborate Logan's
testimony about either the Company signing up or receiving
protection. Although Logan now alleges as does Young that
Rider had stated they needed union employees, such testi-
mony by Logan is inconsistent with his previous testimony
given in Federal court on this crucial point and the basis of
his present testimony on this same point apparently is not
based solely on his own independent recollection. Since
Young's testimony stands urcorroborated and inconsistent
with that of both Rider and Young concerning using union
employees, I do not credit it. Further the picketing had
already ceased prior to this conversation. 16 For these rea-
sons I credit Rider's version of the conversation corroborat-
ed by Everhart and therefore find no statements were made
pertaining to either recognition by the Company or organi-
zation of its employees.
While certain evidence was adduced that Respondent
had picketed the Company's jobs in Topeka in the fall of
1970 and in Lawrence on two occasions either -in 1969 or
1970 in addition to picketing at Lawrence in May 1971 as
reported in the Board's decision in Laborers Union Local
1290 (Walters Foundation, Inc), 195 NLRB 370,17 of which
13 The Charging Party's attorney offered into evidence for impeachment
purposes a signed statement given by Everhart in which he had stated the
complete conversation was set forth whereas his actual testimony exceeded
that recorded in the statement Since this was an unsworn statement prepared
by Everhart himself and in view of his explanation concerning his present
recollection, I do not find such statement to constitute a sufficient basis for
impeaching his testimonym ea i
While Everhart explained he had listened in on the telephone conversa-
tion because he had a picket on the Company, the evidence herein found
establishes the picketing had already ceased
17 The caption of the picket signs in the reported Decision issued on
February I I was substantially the same as used in the instant case
CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL LABORERS 401
I have been requested and have taken official notice, the
only evidence submitted at the hearing to establish the basis
for the picketing was as follows: Robert Schmid, a foreman
for the Company, testified in December 1969 while the
Company was performing work for Lawrence Construction
Company he attended a meeting arranged by that employer
with representatives of the Carpenters Union, the Ironwork-
ers Union or Steelworkers Union, and the Laborers Union.
The only representative he could identify was Respondent
Business Manager John Rider.'s According to Schmid the
Ironworkers representative who acted as spokesman in-
quired whether he was going to put on a component crew
including laborers, carpenters, and ironworkers, whereup-
on he replied he wasn't but stated he thought they had come
there to negotiate. In reply to Schmid's question he was
advised they were bothering his Company rather than other
employers because he was big enough to get something
from. Although the jobsite was being picketed with signs
captioned "Breaking Down Established Working Condi-
tions, Unfair Labor," it was not established the name of
which if any union appeared on the sign.
as the representative of the Company's employees and that
no representation petition was filed, however, it asserts its
picketing was lawful.
Having already made certain findings supra, wherein I
credited Respondent Business Manager Rider's version of
his March 23 conversation with the Company Secretary and
Business Consultant Logan and further found Respondent
was not responsible either for statements allegedly made by
Paul Young or to Attorney Richard Adams, the only issues
remaining are whether the picketing itself was for the pros-
cribed objects or was conducted for more than a reasonable
time."
The caption on the picket signs, which is consistent with
the testimony of Respondent Business Manager Rider as to
the purpose of the picketing, protests the Company' s failure
to maintain area standards which the Company admits fail-
ing to do. Picketing for such an object is not for the pros-
cribed objects of recognition or organization under the Act
and is therefore lawful.22
Therefore, in the absence of any other probative evidence
as here to establish the picketing was for the proscribed
objects alleged, General Counsel has failed to establish by
a preponderance of the evidence, as is his burden, thatC. Analysis and Conclusions
General Counsel contends, while Respondent denies,
Respondent's picketing of the Company's jobsites was for
recognitional and organizational objects proscribed by Sec-
tion 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act and was therefore unlawful. This
section of the Act 19 prohibits picketing by a noncertified
union for recognitional or organizational objects for a rea-
sonable time not exceeding 30 days without a representation
petition being filed2° Respondent admits it was not certified
18 According to Foreman Schmid, John Rider is the son of Respondent
Business Manager Joseph Rider.
i9 Sec. 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act provides as follows.
It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its
agents-
Respondent's picketing violated the Act.
However, assuming arguendo, the picketing was for the
objects proscribed inasmuch as it only lasted 22 days, I do
not find such limited period sufficient to constitute a rea-
sonable time as required by the Act. While the Act does not
define "reasonable time," violations where picketing has
occurred less than 30 days are limited to those cases involv-
ing unusual circumstances in connection with picketing
such as threats or acts of violence 23 Thus, picketing such as
here for a period of 22 days with only deliveries being re-
fused does not constitute a reasonable time contemplated
by the Act 24
While the Charging Party contends the picketing extend-
ed beyond cessation of the actual picketing on March 14 by
virtue of the continued presence of the former pickets at the
jobsites, I do not find their mere presence constituted an
to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be
picketed , any employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring
an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the
representative of his employees , or forcing or requiring the employees
of an employer to accept or select such labor organization as their
collective bargaining representative , unless such labor organization is
currently certified as the representative of such employees.
where such picketing has been conducted without a petition under
section 9(c) being filed within a reasonable period of time not to
exceed thirty days from the commencement of such picketing . Provid-
ed, That when such a petition has been filed the Board shall forthwith,
without regard to the provisions of section 9(c)(l) or the absence of
a showing of a substantial interest on the part of the labor organiza-
tion , direct an election in such unit as the Board finds to be appropri-
ate and shall certify the results thereof . Provided further, That nothing
in this subparagraph (C) shall be construed to prohibit any picketing
or other publicity for the purpose of truthfully advising the public
(including consumers) that an employer does not employ members of.
or have a contract with , a labor organization , unless an effect of such
picketing is to induce any individual employed by any other person
in the course of his employment, not to pick up, deliver or transport
any goods or not to perform any service
extension of such picketing . Concededly, the absence of
picket signs does not preclude a finding picketing has oc-
curred 25 However , the case 26 cited by the Charging Party
is distinguishable for there the union members were posted
in front of the office to confront both employees and cus-
tomers , whereas here the evidence only established the for-
mer pickets were on occasions observed either driving
20 International Hod Carriers Building and Common Laborers Union of
America, Local 840 (C A Bhnne Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1153.
2i The prior incidents of picketing at other jobsites were too remote and
not sufficiently developed on the record to shed light on the objects of the
picketing involved here.
22 See Houston Building and Construction Trades Council (Claude Everett
Construction Company), 136 NLRB 321 ; International Hod Carriers, Building
and Common Laborers ' Union of America, Local No. 41, AFL-CIO (Calmut
Contractors Association ), 133 NLRB 512.
23 See District 65, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO
(Eastern Camera & Photo Corp), 141 NLRB 991.
24 See Culinary Workers, Cooks, Bartenders and Hotel-Motel Service Em-
ployees, Local No 62, et aL (Tropicana Lodge), 172 NLRB 419.
s United Mine Workers of America, District 12, el aL (Traux-Traer Coal
Company), 177 NLRB 213, 218.
26 Lumber and Sawmill Workers Local Union No. 2797 (Stoltze Land &
Lumber Company), 156 NLRB 388.
402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
through thejobsites or located at various locations consider-
ably distant from albeit within sight of the areas where the
Company's employees were working, while during the actu-
al picketing it had been confined to work areas . The fact
concrete suppliers without any confrontations or appeals by
the former pickets had advised they wouldn 't make deliver-
ies during their presence on the jobsites where other em-
ployers were also working is not alone sufficient to legally
conclude they were engaged in picketing . Therefore , for the
reasons stated , assuming the actual picketing was for the
proscribed recognitional and organizational objects alleged,
I find and would recommend dismissing the complaint on
the basis the picketing did not continue for a reasonable
time required by the Act for finding a violation.
Act.
2. Construction & General Laborers Local Union 1290 is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. The evidence does not prove that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of tha Act, as alleged.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record in the case , I hereby issue the following
recommended:27
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the complaint herein be, and it
hereby is , dismissed in its entirety.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Walters Foundations , Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
zr In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec . 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its
findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes