Hotel & Restaurant Employees Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1976

223 N.L.R.B. 1058 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 217, Hotel & Restaurant Employees Union,
AFL-CIO and Piccadilly Square, Ltd. Case 1-
CP-265
April 23, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS JENKINS , PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On February 4, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Stanley N. Ohlbaum issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
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 and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Local 217, Hotel & Res-
taurant Employees Union, AFL-CIO, Woodbridge,
Connecticut, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in said recommended
Order.
1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board 's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
DECISION
1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT; ISSUE
STANLEY N. OHLBAUM, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding under the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (29 U.S.C. §151 et seq., Act), based upon com-
plaint of the National Labor Relations Board's Regional
Director for Region 1 (Boston , Massachusetts), dated Sep-
tember 12, growing out of a charge filed on behalf of Picca-
dilly Square, Ltd., on August 18, was heard in New Haven,
Connecticut, on October 21-22, 1975, with all parties parti-
cipating throughout and being afforded full opportunity to
present evidence and contentions. A brief was received
from Respondent on November 24, 1975, General Counsel
and the Charging Party having elected not to file any.
The basic issue presented is whether Respondent Union
violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act by picketing Charg-
ing Party Piccadilly Square, Ltd., with an object of requir-
ing it to recognize and bargain with the Union and to re-
quire its employees to accept or select the Union as their
bargaining representative, at a time when the Union was
not certified as such bargaining representative and had not
for over 30 days after commencement of the picketing filed
a petition with the Board seeking certification.
Record and brief have been carefully considered. Upon
the entire record and my observation of the testimonial
demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
IL JURISDICTION
At all material times, Charging Party Piccadilly Square,
Ltd., a Connecticut corporation, has maintained its princi-
pal office and place of business, a restaurant purveying
food and beverage to public, at 70-72 Pond Lilly Road,
New Haven, Connecticut, where its gross annual sales ex-
ceed $500,000 and the value of its annual receipts of mer-
chandise directly in interstate commerce from places out-
side of the State of Connecticut exceeds $50,000.
I find that at all material times Piccadilly Square, Ltd.,
has been and is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. I fur-
ther find that at all of those times Respondent Union has
been and is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts as Found
As has been indicated, it is alleged that Respondent
Union violated Section 8 (b)(7)(C) of the Act by seeking
recognition from and seeking to organize the employees of
Piccadilly Square through continuing to picket the Picca-
dilly Square restaurant on Pond Lilly Road in New Haven
without being certified or filing a petition with the Board
seeking certification as bargaining representative. While
admitting the picketing, the Union insists it was purely "in-
formational" in object and therefore not violative of the
Act.
1. Piccadilly Square goes into business
In January 1975,' Piccadilly Square, Ltd., leased the
premises here involved at 70-72 Pond Lilly Road or Ave-
nue, New Haven, for restaurant business purposes. Those
premises, untenanted when thus leased, had previously
been occupied and operated as a restaurant under other
ownership and management, under the names "Steak
1 Unless otherwise indicated , all dates are in 1975.
223 NLRB No. 162
HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES UNION 1059
House West" and "Les Shaw's." After extensive redesign
and renovation rendering the exterior as well as the interior
of the premises wholly different in appearance, a new res-
taurant was opened there by Piccadilly Square about 7
months later, on July 23. While the previous business or
businesses (Steak House West and Les Shaw's) had operat-
ed under collective agreement with Respondent Union,
Piccadilly Square has so far not done so. Piccadilly Square
obtained its employees from among applicants hired by it
directly without advertisement or screeening as to past em-
ployment. With only one possible exception,2 no former
employee of the restaurants previously located at the prem-
ises applied for work at Piccadilly Square, which here de-
nies knowledge of their wages or that it has been asked or
has refused to pay wages at that rate or scale.
On direct examination as Respondent's witness, John W.
Wilhelm, Respondent Union's secretary-treasurer and ser-
vicing representative of the employees of the previous busi-
nesses located at the Pond Lilly Road premises, conceded
that at no time has the Union in any way claimed that
Piccadilly Square is a successor employer or in any way
legally obligated to the Union through the latter's collec-
tive agreement with any previous restaurant at the location
or otherwise.
Piccadilly Square opens to patrons daily at 11:30 a.m.
From Monday through Thursday it closes at I a.m., on
Friday and Saturday at 2 a.m., and on Sunday at 11 p.m.
The cook reports around 10:30 a.m.; lunch is served from
11:30 a.m. or noon to 2:30 p.m.; dinner is from 5 to 11
p.m., with entertainment after 9; and liquid refreshment
continues to be dispensed after 11 p.m. The restaurant
manager arrives around 11 a.m. and may remain until and
even after 9 p.m. Deliveries of food, beverages, supplies,
and equipment are normally-except by reason of
Respondent's picketing, as will be shown-received
throughout the day. The restaurant's principal operates ad-
ditional restaurants in Fairfield, Ridgefield, and Water-
bury, Connecticut, under names other than Piccadilly
Square.
2. The restaurant location
As shown by a sketch and photographs in evidence, Pic-
cadilly Square is a substantial structure in outward design
resembling the facade of a medieval castle or fortress. The
structure is set back from Pond Lilly Road (near the
latter's access point to Merritt Parkway), with at least three
entrance lanes , one or more of which it appears to share
with New Haven Motor Inn and Conference Center to the
immediate east . Customers' parking is in front (i.e., to the
south, or between the structure and the Pond Lilly Road
access lanes) and to the side (seemingly chiefly the westerly
side) of the structure. Employees' parking is on the other
(i.e., southerly) side of Pond Lilly Road at the northeaster-
ly corner of Fitch Street and Pond Lilly Road. Also on the
other side of Pond Lilly Road, across from Piccadilly
Square, is the Pond Lilly Motor Inn.
2 Andrew Biancur, former pantryman/cook at Steak House West and Les
Shaw's.
3. Piccadilly Square hears from the Union
On March 18, 1975, Union Secretary-Treasurer John W.
Wilhelm wrote Piccadilly Square's attorney that he had
learned that the latter "represent[s] the prospective opera-
tors of a new operation at the former premises of Les
Shaw's and Steak House West. As you may know, this
Union has since 1969, under two different operators, repre-
sented the employees at this restaurant. I would appreciate
you or your clients advising me what their intentions are
with respect to the former employees of Les Shaw's, Inc.,
and with respect to this Union." The carbon copy of this
letter shows a "blind" copy to "Debbie Anderson, Organiz-
er." (Emphasis supplied.)
On June 6, Wilhelm for the Union wrote a further letter
to the attorney for Piccadilly Square, pointing out that
"This is the second time I have written you," and again
reminding him that the Union had since 1969 represented
employees of the two previous restaurant enterprises at the
location "now being prepared." The letter again asks that
the Union be advised as to Piccadilly Square's "intentions
regarding the former employees of Steak House West and
regarding this Union." (Emphasis supplied.) On the same
date (June 6), Wilhelm also dispatched another letter di-
rectly to Piccadilly Square principal Anthony D'Alto, as-
serting that "A collective bargaining agreement was in ef-
fect at the time Steak House West closed, and has not
expired." This letter also concludes, "I would appreciate
your advising me of your intentions regarding the former
employees of Steak House West and regarding this Union."
(Emphasis supplied.) 3
4. The union picketing and further union
communications
As has been indicated, Piccadilly Square restaurant
opened for customers on July 23. Prior to then, the Union's
official publication "Hot Line" issued a bulletin to its
"New Haven Area Local 217 Members" captioned "YOUR
UNION NEEDS YOUR HELP!!" The bulletin (G.C. Exh. 5) point-
ed out that the Union had begun to represent employees at
Les Shaw's and Steak House West in 1969 after "We had
to strike to get the Union in at Les Shaw's, and we had an
excellent contract there" until the establishment went out
of business in January 1975. The bulletin then pointed out
that after the premises were closed from January to July:
The restaurant . . . . is about to reopen under a new
management with the name Picadilly [sic] Square .. a
The new management apparently intends to try to op-
erate without hiring the former employees at the res-
taurant, and without the Union. [Emphasis supplied.]
IT IS VITAL TO EVERY LOCAL 217 MEMBER-
not just the former Les Shaw's workers-THAT WE
PUT AN INFORMATIONAL PICKET LINE
3 The recipients of the foregoing letters chose not to answer them.
As has been shown above, Respondent Union makes no claim that
Piccadilly Square is a successor employer or otherwise bound to Respon-
dent by virtue of any collective agreement. Respondent similarly so stipulat-
ed to the United States District Judge in the Sec. 10(1) preliminary injunc-
tion proceeding (G.C. Exh. 9, pp. 37-38).
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AROUND PICA DILLY SQUARE FROM THE DA Y
IT OPENS. The public must be made aware of what
this new owner is doing, so that other employers we
deal with-all employers, private and towns too-
won't be tempted to try to get rid of our members and
the Union this way.
The bulletin then exhorts all members to volunteer for
picket duty, with inquiries to be referred to "Organizer
Debbie Anderson."
The Union has continued to picket the Piccadilly Square
establishment from the day of its opening , July 23, until at
least the time of this hearing in late October 1975. Its pick-
ets have carried two different signs . The first sign, carried
from July 23 to October 19-i.e., for almost 3 months, until
2 days before the instant hearing commenced-stated:
UNFAIR
PREVAILING UNION WAGES,
BENEFITS AND CONDITIONS
ARE NOT BEING OBSERVED IN
THIS ESTABLISHMENT,
SO PLEASE
DO NOT
PATRONIZE
THIS IS NOT A STRIKE
LOCAL 217
HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES
UNION AFL-CIO.
As a result of a suggestion or comment (G.C. Exh. 9, pp.
52-57) made by the United States District Judge during the
course of a hearing in New Haven on October 3 upon the
Board 's Regional Director's application for a preliminary
injunction to restrain the picketing-which he denied-the
wording of the picket signs was, commencing October 20-
i.e., on the day before the instant hearing-changed to:
UNFAIR
THIS RESTAURANT:
1. REFUSED TO REHIRE WORKERS
PREVIOUSLY EMPLOYED HERE 5
2. REFUSED TO PAY WAGES
AND BENEFITS PREVIOUSLY
PAID HERE 5
PLEASE DO NOT PATRONIZE
THIS IS NOT A STRIKE
LOCAL 217
HOTEL RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES
UNION AFL-CIO.
The picket line and its operational method, as well as
incidents occurring thereon, were described by various wit-
nesses . I fully credit the testimony of New Haven Police
Officer William C. Burke, who was officially assigned to
motorcycle patrol duty at the location and who in that
capacity on his 6 p.m. -2 a.m. shift kept the premises under
observation. Officer Burke testified that he has seen as
many as nine pickets there, with as many as four or as few
as one at each entrance (or occasionally none at a particu-
lar entrance); that he has repeatedly observed pickets stop-
ping automobiles seeking to enter, and standing in front of
those vehicles as they were half-in and half-out of the
driveway, obstructing traffic; that he has repeatedly over-
heard pickets exhorting customers not to patronize the res-
taurant, and stating that "the restaurant [is] unfair to the
union people" and that "the food [is] inferior"; and that he
has observed pickets shouting at occupants of cars parked
in the restaurant parking spaces (as well as parkers ex-
changing shouts with pickets). Officer Burke specifically
recalled hearing Respondent Union's organizer, Debbie
Anderson-identified as such on its letterhead (G.C. Exh.
6) as well as in its "Hot Line" (G.C. Exh. 5, last two
lines)-calling persons seeking to enter the restaurant, "fat-
ty," "faggot," "baldy," "scab," and "bastard." Although
Officer Burke had previously warned Miss Anderson as
well as Union Secretary-Treasurer Wilhelm not to harass,
swear at, or to engage in name-calling of customers or per-
sons seeking access to the premises, or to stop traffic, ap-
parently this was to no avail. On the evening of August 13,
after having repeatedly warned the picketers-including
Anderson and Wilhelm-not to stop cars "half in and half
out of the driveway," in order to avoid accidents, when
they nevertheless persisted in doing so and almost precipi-
tated an accident, he placed the pair (Anderson and Wil-
helm) under arrest for disorderly conduct for interfering
with traffic, after subduing Anderson following a brief
scuffle .6
Piccadilly Square Principal Anthony D'Alto, who im-
pressed me as a witness worthy of belief, testified that he
"many times" observed the union pickets stop vehicles-
including delivery trucks and suppliers-seeking to enter
the restaurant parking lot, and that some of those vehicles
thereupon turned around and left. By way of example,
D'Alto referred to an incident during the last week of July,
when a United Liquor Company delivery truck seeking to
make a delivery at the restaurant turned around and left
after being stopped by pickets at the entrance to the restau-
rant parking lot (the delivery truck returned later, at a time
when the pickets were no longer there); another incident
during the first week of August, involving a Maxwell
House coffee delivery truckdriver who, after a 15-minute
discussion with pickets after he had made a delivery (the
pickets had not yet arrived), thereafter failed to return with
other deliveries (these were subsequently made through
other drivers); and still another episode during the first
week of restaurant operations (last week of July), when a
truckdriver of Villano Sign Company transporting signs for
delivery at the restaurant was stopped at the entrance and,
after discussion with picketer Debbie Anderson, backed
out and left without making the delivery, which was made
later that day by his employer Joseph Villano personally
after D'Alto had telephoned the latter. D'Alto's testimony
concerning the failure of the Villano truckdriver to make
the sign delivery was corroborated by the testimony of Jo-
seph Peter Villano, a highly credible witness, who testified
that his company's employees are not unionized, and that
'This matter was said to be awaiting disposition in a local court at the
5 Denied by Piccadilly Square principal , D'Alto, whose testimony I credit . time of the instant proceeding.
HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES UNION 1061
he was constrained to make the described sign delivery to
Piccadilly Square by driving the truck there personally af-
ter his driver David Hogan had returned without unload-
ing it because of the picketers. When Villano himself
reached and sought to enter the premises, his truck was
again stopped by picketers including Debbie Anderson,
who demanded that he "drop the load in the street and let
the owners come out and pick it up off the street" and who
assailed him as a "scab." Villano, who did all sign work,
interior as well as exterior, for Piccadilly Square, thereafter
was constrained to adjust the timing of his numerous deliv-
eries to the restaurant so as to be off-hour and also fre-
quently by himself personally, necessitating readjustment
of his company's work schedules so as to avoid the expense
of aborted deliveries or duplicative redeliveries as with
driver Hogan.
D'Alto explained as a result of such episodes and notifi-
cations from various dealers and suppliers-including li-
quor, meat , and laundry, identifying these by name-that
their drivers would not make deliveries because of the pick-
ets, Piccadilly Square was constrained to reschedule deliv-
ery times so as to avoid hours (11:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m. and
5:30-9:30 p.m.) when pickets were present, substantially
reducing and compressing the "delivery day" and resulting
not only in inconvenience but derangements in the normal
economic business operations of the restaurant.
Like Officer Burke, D'Alto has also heard his
restaurant's customers and prospective customers, as well
as its suppliers, subjected to verbal abuse by the pickets-
apparently in particular by Union Organizer Debbie An-
derson-through the use of such epithets as "scab" (espe-
cially) and "old bag," his restaurant's food characterized as
"terrible," "lousy," and "stinks," and customers exhorted
not to "[go] in there" but to "go some other place."
D'Alto has also seen Respondent's pickets regularly
("just about every day") accosting his restaurant's employ-
ees as the latter have sought to enter the restaurant in order
to work. One such employee, Thomas Michael Cannata, a
waiter whose demeanor likewise impressed me favorably
and whom I credit, testified under subpena that around
August 20, when he sought to drive into the parking lot, he
was assailed as a "scab" by Respondent Organizer Debbie
Anderson who demanded to know, "You-what the hell
are you doing all the way here from New York?" Cannata,
whose vehicle bore New York license plates, explained that
he was a student, "working there to earn money." Ander-
son then pointed out that "There's no union in there" and
asked Cannata whether D'Alto had spoken to the employ-
ees about the union. Another picket described himself as a
"professional union organizer." Anderson conveyed to
Cannata that he could "do a lot better" if he were in the
Union and that the Union could also "do a lot more for"
the other employees there, and exhorted Cannata, "Why
don't you stay [or go] with us . . . we could do a lot more
for you than they [i.e., your employers] could." However,
Cannata remained impervious to their organizational solic-
itation and has continued to work there without joining the
Union, notwithstanding the fact that Anderson has contin-
ued to call him a "scab." Cross-examination elicited from
Cannata the further fact-not contained in his pretrial
statement-that he was also told by the pickets that they
were "picketing because there wasn't a union in there." 7
Still further evidence concerning the picketing was ad-
duced by Walter J. Smith, a licensed private investigator in
the restaurant's employ, who observed the picket line from
August 9-13. As credibly recounted by Smith, on the eve-
ning of August 9 (a Saturday), for example, Union Organ-
izer Debbie Anderson would walk in front of cars seeking
to enter a vehicular access lane to the restaurant parking
area, causing the cars to stop, whereupon two male pickets
would approach the car's occupants to talk to them. In
order to ascertain with greater precision what followed,
Smith endeavored to drive his own car in, resulting in a
repetition of the aforedescribed routine. The following en-
sued:
[Picket] : What do you want to go in there for?
[Smith] : Because I want to go in. [To Debbie Ander-
son] Pardon me. Get out of the way, kid.
[Anderson, "in a sarcastic tone" while remaining in
front of Smith's car] : You get out of the way.
[Picket] : What are, you going in there for? They fired
35 people.
[Smith] : Well, what do I know? Are they on strike
here?
[Wilhelm] : No, they're walking around here, because
they haven't got their jobs.
[Smith] : Well, I'm going in.
[Picket] : Well, you're gonna get sick on the food.
Smith thereupon drove in, parked, and returned to his sur-
veillance point across the street, whence he observed the
pickets continue to stop vehicles seeking to enter. At 7 p.m,
with the arrival of the police, the pickets (there were a total
of 12 that night) proceeded to walk back and forth in the
vehicular entrance lanes, "yelling remarks at drivers going
into the restaurant." In 1 hour (6-7 p.m.) that evening, six
cars stopped by the picketers turned around and left with-
out entering. On the following Monday afternoon and eve-
ning, August 11, Smith observed the pickets yelling at oc-
cupants of cars seeking to enter the restaurant area. On
Tuesday, August 12, he observed similar activity, and on
that occasion, when he asked a picket "What's this," he
was informed that "They don't want a union in here. They
had one before. The don't want to hire back the union
people. They closed up, and this is an informational line."
That evening he again saw three cars turn away and leave
after being stopped by the female picket standing in front
of the car in a repetition of the routine described above.
Again on the following evening (August 13) he observed a
car stopped by the picketing from entering, and the de-
scribed episode resulting in the arrest of Anderson and
Wilhelm.
Based upon demeanor observations, internal testimonial
inconsistencies and variations, and resolution of contradic-
tions with testimony of other witnesses deemed to possess a
higher degree of probity, and also assessing what I regard
as the inherent probabilities of the described picketing situ-
ation, I do not credit the denial of Respondent 's witness,
Union Organizer Debbie Anderson, that she at no time
7 Cannata did not testify in the United States District Court 10(1) prelimi-
nary injunction proceeding.
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interfered with the flow of traffic into the Piccadilly Square
premises , and that any stopping by any car entering a pick-
eted driveway was purely "coincidental" and entirely vol-
untary on the part of the driver in order to speak to the
pickets . I likewise do not credit Anderson's professed ina-
bility to "recall" any conversation whatsoever with Canna-
ta, rapidly changed to an outright denial of any conversa-
tion with him, and as rapidly converted back to an alleged
in capacity to "remember" such a conversation ; nor do I
credit her broad , unconvincing denial that she ever asked
any of the employees to join or be represented by the
Union of which she was at all times the active organizer.8
Anderson insisted at the instant trial that she was and is 9
ignorant of the wages or other terms or conditions of em-
ployment of employees at Piccadilly Square .t° According
to her testimony , Anderson informed occupants of cars
driving into the Piccadilly Square driveway that "We'd ap-
preciate it if you wouldn 't come in here" because "the peo-
ple that used to work there would like employment at Pic-
cadilly Square" and that the current employees were not
receiving the wages and fringe benefits which had been
paid "on this site's previous location ." She conceded that-
perhaps contrary to the information contained on the
Union's "new" and current picket sign (G.C. Exh. 8)-(1)
no previous employee of Piccadilly Square has been re-
fused employment there and (2) she has no knowledge that
Piccadilly Square has at any time refused to pay wages or
benefits previously paid by it to its employees."
Respondent's witness John W. Wilhelm, the Union's sec-
retary-treasurer who represented employees of previous
restaurants at the location in question which had recog-
nized the Union as collective-bargaining representative,
testified that his objectives in writing to Piccadilly Square
in March (G.C. Exh . 2, supra) were ( 1) to ascertain whether
Piccadilly Square was a "successor employer" and "hoping
that their intentions were to recognize [the Union]," and (2)
to bring about the employment of the persons formerly
employed at the previous restaurant there . 12 He apparently
8 Anderson professed, however, to recall speaking to Piccadilly Square
employee David Peterson as he was leaving the premises after work. After
testifying on direct examination that she remembered him from high school
a year before and insisting that they only exchanged hellos at the employees'
parking lot across the street from the restaurant, Anderson conceded on
cross-examination that their exchange was not so limited and that they
talked about old friends and that she asked him how much pay and benefits
he was receiving only because she was "curious," although she professed to
be unable to recall whether she told Peterson (or whether he asked) what she
was doing there-about 4 miles from the center of New Haven.
9 Except for her conversation with Peterson recounted above in In. 8,
even prior to which, according to her testimony, she was informing pros-
pective customers seeking access to the restaurant that employees there were
not being paid what they had been.
10 If this is true, the contents of the picket signs (supra) characterizing
those wages could hardly be regarded as accurately informed, unless the
Union was keeping information from its own organizer (Anderson) who had
according to her own testimony serviced the union members of Steak House
West at the location in question. See discussion. B. infra.
11 The "new" current picket sign (G.C. Exh. 8) in question refers to "this
restaurant." But, as shown above, Respondent has conceded and stipulated
that Piccadilly Square is not the same restaurant as those previously there,
in ownership, management, or even appearance. It is simply another restau-
rant, in every sense of the term, at the same location where other restaurants
used to be.
12 While of course not unlawful, at any rate if not coupled with unreason-
ably prolonged picketing without petitioning for representation under the
satisfied himself that Piccadilly Square was not a "succes-
sor employer" or in any way legally obligated to the
Union. Wilhelm concedes that if, in response to his letters,
Piccadilly Square had recognized the Union, part of the
Union's objective would have been achieved, and that the
Union would then have proceeded further to effect the
reemployment of its members who had previously been
employed by former occupants of the location. Wilhelm
also conceded at the instant hearing that at the commence-
ment of the picketing of Piccadilly Square by his Union
(July 23), he (like Anderson) was unaware of what wages
and fringes were actually being paid to employees by Pic-
cadilly Square, and that it was not until early August that
he learned from one of its employees (cook John Jordan)
that the wages were "substantially lower" than union scale.
Wilhelm, one of the pickets at the premises, testified that in
asking prospective patrons "not to go in the restaurant, or
to go somewhere else," he informed them that "the restau-
rant closed for remodeling and it changed hands. And that
the new employers wouldn't hire back any of the people
who had worked there before. I tell them that the wages
and benefits being paid are considerably less than what
had been paid at that location before." Wilhelm acknowl-
edges that the epithet "scab" has been applied by pickets to
patrons of Piccadilly Square-to Wilhelm, "scab" is not
limited to its historical denotation but connotes "anybody
who crosses our picket lines."
On August 27 the Union, by letter of Secretary-Treasur-
er Wilhelm, protested to various automobile dealers in the
New Haven area that "Employees of your organization not
only refuse to honor our requests to the public not to pa-
tronize Piccadilly Square; they also continually cross the
picket line with your dealer plates and/or courtesy cars,
thereby publicly flaunting the fact that they-and by impli-
cation your organization-are siding with the owner in this
situation." Acknowledging that individuals are free to
cross a picket line, the letter nevertheless pointed out that
"I am sure that many of your customers are Union mem-
bers, and in fact that many of your customers can afford to
trade with you because of their Union-won paychecks,"
and requested that "you and your employees [do] not cross
this picket line and thereby take sides against this Union."
(G.C. Exh. 6)
B. Discussion and Resolution
No question of successorship or of bargaining obligation
on the part of Piccadilly Square with the Union is asserted
here. Since it is not claimed that Piccadilly Square is an
alter ego or a "successor employer," it is not bound by the
collective agreement of the Union with any previous busi-
Act, it is difficult to see how such an objective on behalf of a previous total
union complement of personnel would not equate with and in effect accom-
plish an "organizing" of the new restaurant in one fell swoop . Indeed, testi-
fying before the United States District Court in the related 10(1) proceeding
on cross-examination Wilhelm pointed out that when the restaurant had
previously "changed hands .... the new operators rehired all the former
employees and decided to accept the collective-bargaining agreement that
was in existence at the time of that earlier change in hands" (G.C. Exh. 9. p.
41)-an outcome which he hoped would be repeated in the case of Piccadil-
ly Square . It is, again , difficult to view such an object and projected out-
come as other than recognitional.
HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES UNION 1063
ness occupant of the premises in which it is located; and
since the Union does not claim to represent the employees
of Piccadilly Square , the latter is not obligated to bargain
with the Union . See N. L.R.B. v . Burns International Securi-
ty Services, Inc. et al., 406 U.S. 272 (1972).
Under Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, it is an unfair labor
practice for an uncertified labor organization or its agents
to picket an employer where an object thereof is to force or
require the employer to recognize or bargain with the em-
ployer as the representative of his employees , or to force or
require acceptance or selection of the union by the employ-
ees as their bargaining representative, where the picketing
has been conducted for over 30 days without filing a repre-
sentation petition under the Act (with certain provisos dis-
cussed below). It is undisputed that the Union here is un-
certified and that it has picketed the employer for over 30
days without filing a representation petition . It therefore
remains only to determine whether an object of the picket-
ing was recognitional or organizational ; or whether, as the
Union contends , its picketing falls within the proviso to
Section 8(b)(7)(C) permitting "picketing . . . . for the pur-
pose of truthfully advising the public (including consum-
ers) 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
services."
For continued picketing without filing a representational
petition to fall within the proscription of Section
8(b)(7)(C), no more is required than that "an object" (em-
phasis supplied ), as the Act plainly states , be recognitional
or organizational . Cf., e.g ., N.L.R.B . v. Denver Bldg. and
Construction Trades Council, et al. [Gould & Preisner], 341
U.S. 675, 688-689 (1951); N.L.R.B. v. Milk Drivers & Dairy
Employees Local Union No. 584, IBTCWHA [Old Dutch
Farms, Inc.], 341 F.2d 29, 32 (C.A. 2, 1965), cert. denied,
382 U.S. 816 (1965); New York Mailers' Union No. 6, Inter-
national Typographical Union, AFL-CIO [New York Her-
ald Tribune, Inc.] v. N.L.R.B., 316 F.2d 371, 372 (C.A.D.C.,
1963)-cases arising under similar wording in Section
8(b)(4); United Mine Workers of America, Pocket Local
7083 (Grundy Mining Company), 145 NLRB 247 (1963).
Credited proof here established and it is found that the
Union's picketing was for both of those objects,
Respondent's contention that its picketing was solely "in-
formational" notwithstanding . ( 1) Respondent's repeated
letters to the employer and its counsel explicitly soliciting
the employer's "intentions regarding . . . this Union"
(G.C. Exhs. 2, 3, and 4), (2) Respondent's "Hot Line" bul-
letin reference to the employer as one attempting "to oper-
ate . . . without the Union" (G.C. Exh. 5), and (3)
Respondent's attempt to enlist the employer's employee
Thomas Michael Cannata into the Union, may hardly be
regarded as "informational"; on the contrary, they bespeak
recognitional and organizational objectives , within the ex-
press proscription of Section 8(b)(7)(C) when coupled with
prolonged picketing without seeking certification based
upon a statutory secret-ballot election. Fortifying this con-
clusion are admissions , recounted above , made by various
pickets as to the recognitional /organizational reason for
and character of the picketing.13
Respondent's picket signs themselves are neither incon-
sistent with a recognitional or organizational object for the
picketing, nor do they in any way rule out the existence of
such an object or objects. As I had occasion to observe,
with Board approbation, in Local 3, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Mansfield Contract-
ing Corporation), 205 NLRB 559, 564 (1973):
... the mere language of the picket sign does not of
itself establish the legality of the picketing nor even its
real object or objects. Thus, even though a picket sign
expressly states that it is informational for "customers
and the public only," with no oral supplementation by
pickets, it has been held that the picketing may never-
theless be violative of the Act. See, e .g., N.L.R.B. v.
Local 254, Building Service Employees [University
Cleaning Co.], 376 F.2d 131 (C.A.' 1, 1967), cert. de-
nied 389 U.S. 856, where the picket sign went so far as
to state: "This statement is directed to customers and
the public only" and that "It is not a request to em-
ployees to refuse to pick up, deliver, or transport or
refuse to perform any services."
Clearly, self-serving characterizations or disclaimers by a
picketing union, as here, concerning the nature of its pick-
eting, neither establish its own allegations to be the fact nor
do they rule out the coexistence-as determined by an
agency or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, rather than
by the union itself-of another, proscribed illegal object.
Nor does any change in the wording of a picket sign either
erase any impropriety in the wording of the previous sign
or effect a change in the object of the picketing. Cf. Local
3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO (Jack Picoult and Al Picoult d/b/a Jack Picoult), 144
NLRB 5, 7-8 (1963), enfd. 339 F.2d 600 (C.A. 2, 1964);
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 562 (Foor Engineering
Company), 143 NLRB 475, 481, fn. 16 (1963), enfd. 328
F.2d 620 (C.A. 8, 1964).
Respondent contends that its continued picketing with-
out seeking certification was lawful under the "informa-
tional" picketing proviso of Section 8(b)(7)(C). While skill-
fully advanced in Respondent's counsel's excellent brief,
this contention is wide of the mark here for a variety of
reasons . To begin with, as has been found, an object of the
picketing was recognitional and organizational , bringing
the picketing squarely within the main proscription of Sec-
tion 8(b)(7). The mere existence of an added "information-
al" element or object would not serve to remove it from
that proscription. Futhermore, the "informational" picket-
ing proviso contained in Section 8(b)(7)(C) is expressly lim-
ited to "truthfully advising the public" (emphasis supplied),
and, as has been shown, the information Respondent disse-
minated to the public was in various respects inaccurate
and thus not truthful. Moreover, it is difficult to perceive
13 Contrary to Respondent 's contention on brief-notwithstanding a
seemingly express concession to the contrary at the hearing-no recogni-
tional demand in haec verba is essential to establish a recognitional objective
on the part of a Union.
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
how the picketing could have been "informational" when,
as conceded by Respondent , at and for some time after its
inception , Respondent was not even in possession of the
alleged "information" it was disseminating . 14 Finally, even
if Respondent's picketing be assumed arguendo to have
been purely "informational," it still violated the Act in
view of the exception to the second (i.e., "informational")
proviso to Section 8(bX7)(C), since an effect thereof was to
induce at least Villano Sign Company driver Hogan not to
deliver goods and not to perform services . Cf. San Francis-
co Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers, Barten-
ders, Hotel, Mote! and Club Service Workers, AFL-CIO,
Local 30 (Jack in the Box), 203 NLRB 744, 746 (1973),
enfd . as modified 501 F.2d 794 (C.A.D.C. 1974); Chefs,
Cooks, Pastry Cooks and Assistants Union of New York, Lo-
cal 89, AFL-CIO (Cafe Rennaissance, Inc.), 154 NLRB 192
(1965); Carpenters Local No. 2133, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Cascade Em-
ployers Association, Inc.), 151 NLRB 1378, 1382-83, fn. 19
(1965), enfd. 356 F.2d 464 (C.A. 9, 1966); United Associa-
tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local
562 (Foor Engineering Company), 143 NLRB 475, 481
(1963), enfd. 328 F.2d 620 (C.A. 8, 1964).
In view of these considerations , it is determined that Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(bx7)(C) of the Act through its continued pick-
eting of the premises of Piccadilly Square, Ltd., under the
circumstances described and found.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Jurisdiction is properly asserted here.
2. By picketing and causing to be picketed the premises
and access entrances thereto, of employer Piccadilly
Square, Ltd., at 70-72 Pond Lilly Road, New Haven, Con-
necticut , with an object of forcing or requiring said em-
ployer to recognize or bargain with Respondent as the rep-
resentative of the employees of said employer , or of forcing
or requiring the employees of said employer to accept or
select Respondent as their collective-bargaining represen-
tative , and with the effect of inducing other employees in
the course of their employment not to deliver or transport
goods or perform services, at a time when Respondent was
not certified as such representative and did not file a peti-
tion under Section 9(c) of the Act within a reasonable time
and within 30 days from the commencement of said picket-
ing, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
3. Said unfair labor practices have affected , are affect-
ing, and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to
affect, commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following:
ORDER 15
Respondent, Local 217, Hotel & Restaurant Employees
Union, AFL-CIO, Woodbridge, Connecticut, and its offi-
cers , agents , and representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from picketing , causing to be picket-
ed, or threatening to picket or cause to be picketed , Picca-
dilly Square, Ltd. of 70-72 Pond Lilly Road, New Haven,
Connecticut, where an object thereon is forcing or requir-
ing said Piccadilly Square, Ltd. to recognize or bargain
with Respondent as the representative of the employees of
Piccadilly Square, Ltd., or forcing or requiring the employ-
ees of Piccadilly Square, Ltd. to accept or select Respon-
dent as their collective-bargaining representative , or where
an effect of such picketing is to induce any individual em-
ployed by any other person in the course of his employ-
ment not to pick up, deliver or transport any goods or not
to perform any services , under circumstances violative of
Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at Respondent 's business offices , union halls,
and meeting places, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 1, after being duly signed
by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to mem-
bers are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be tak-
en to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Return copies of said notice , signed as aforesaid, to
the Regional Director for Region 1, for posting by Picca-
dilly Square, Ltd., at its premises if desirous or willing.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
14 Cf. Automotive Employees, Laundry Drivers & Helpers, Local 88, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America (West Coast Cycle Supply Co.), 208 NLRB 679 (1974); United Broth-
erhood of Carpenters, Local 906, AFL-CIO ( Blankenship Builders, Inc.), 204
NLRB 138, fn. 2 (1973); Carpenters Local No. 2133, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Cascade Employers Associa-
tion. Inc.), 151 NLRB 1378, 1382 ( 1965), enfd . 356 F.2d 464 (C.A. 9, 1966).
15 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 those Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and be-
come its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
16 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United State Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES UNION 1065
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, picket or
cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to
be picketed, Piccadilly Square, Ltd., of 70-72 Pond
Lilly Road, New Haven, Connecticut, for an object of
forcing or requiring it to recognize or bargain with us
as the representative of its employees, or forcing or
requiring its employees to accept or select us as their
collective-bargaining representative, or where an ef-
fect of such picketing is to induce any individual em-
ployed by any other person in the course of his em-
ployment not to pick up, deliver, or transport any
goods or not to perform any services.
LOCAL 2 17, HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES
UNION, AFL-CIO