## Facts

- Claude Everett Construction Company operated a nonunion construction jobsite in Houston and paid wages the union council viewed as below area union standards.
- The Houston Building and Construction Trades Council notified the employer that it considered the wages and conditions “substandard” and stated it would picket unless the employer raised rates to the area standards.
- After the employer did not respond, the council picketed the jobsite using signs protesting “substandard wages and conditions” and disclaiming any intent to induce work stoppages by employees of other employers.
- The council did not request recognition as the bargaining representative, did not claim to represent the employer’s employees, and did not conduct an organizing campaign among those employees.
- The picketing continued for more than 30 days, and no representation petition was filed.
- The picketing resulted in employees of neutral suppliers and carriers refusing to make deliveries or provide services at the site.
- A trial examiner found the picketing unlawful under NLRA § 8(b)(7)(C) as recognitional/organizational picketing; the Board reviewed that conclusion in light of its developing treatment of “area standards” picketing.

## Issues

1. Whether picketing aimed at pressuring a nonunion employer to raise wages and conditions to union-negotiated area standards has a recognitional or organizational “object” under NLRA § 8(b)(7)(C).
2. Whether such picketing becomes unlawful when continued beyond 30 days without a representation petition when the union disclaims recognition and engages in no organizing activity.

## Decision

- The NLRB reversed the trial examiner.
- The Board held the council’s picketing was lawful area-standards picketing, not recognitional or organizational picketing under § 8(b)(7)(C).
- Because the picketing lacked a recognitional/organizational object, the 30-day petition requirement in § 8(b)(7)(C) did not apply, even though the picketing continued beyond 30 days.
- The Board treated economic pressure on the employer and incidental effects on neutral deliveries as insufficient, by themselves, to establish a recognitional object.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 8(b)(7)(C) turns on whether “an object” of picketing is to force employer recognition of the union or to force employee organization; the statute is not triggered by picketing that lacks that object.
- Picketing to protest and eliminate substandard wages and conditions, undertaken without a recognition demand, without a claim of representative status, and without organizing efforts, may be lawful “area standards” picketing rather than recognitional/organizational picketing.
- Use of wage levels reflected in area union agreements as a benchmark does not alone establish a recognitional object.
- Predictable economic consequences of picketing, including reduced services by neutral suppliers or carriers, do not alone determine statutory “object” under § 8(b)(7)(C).

## Conclusion

The Board concluded that a building-trades council may picket a nonunion employer to pressure compliance with prevailing area wage standards without triggering § 8(b)(7)(C), so long as the union does not seek recognition, does not claim to represent the employees, and confines its objective to protesting substandard conditions rather than bargaining on behalf of nonrepresented workers.


Houston Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council (Claude Everett Constr. Co.), 136 N.L.R.B. 321 (1962)