## Facts

- A contractor (Picoult) received a General Services Administration contract to renovate a federal building in Brooklyn, New York.
- Picoult entered into a prehire agreement with another union (Local 199) covering the electrical employees for the project.
- Before the final award, Local 3 protested to the agency and requested assistance to preserve Local 3 members’ employment terms and conditions.
- On November 24, 1961, Local 3 began picketing at the project site with signs stating the electricians working for Picoult were not members of Local 3.
- The NLRB found Local 3’s business agent demanded (before and after picketing began) that Picoult make a contract with Local 3.
- Around December 15, 1961, Local 3 changed its signs to claim the electricians received “sub-standard wages and inferior working conditions.”
- Pickets were placed not only at public entrances but also at delivery areas.
- In one incident, a picket and “picket captain” told a delivery driver not to cross the picket line, and the driver refused to deliver to the site; in another, an employee of a secondary employer refused to cross.
- Local 3 asserted its objectives were to induce subcontracting to an electrical contractor that would sign a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 3 or, failing that, to induce cancellation of Picoult’s contract by the agency.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s finding that an object of the picketing was to force the employer to recognize or bargain with Local 3, in violation of NLRA § 8(b)(7)(C).
2. Whether the picketing qualified for the § 8(b)(7)(C) proviso allowing picketing whose purpose is truthfully advising the public that the employer does not employ union members or have a union contract.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit enforced the NLRB’s cease-and-desist order.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Local 3 picketed with a recognitional objective prohibited by § 8(b)(7)(C).
- The court agreed the picketing did not fall within the informational proviso because the record supported a finding that the picketing was not for the purpose of truthfully advising the public and was directed in part at delivery activity and employees of secondary employers.
- The court accepted the Board’s determination that changing the sign language did not show a change in the purpose of the uninterrupted picketing.

## Legal Principles

- Under NLRA § 8(b)(7)(C), picketing with an object of forcing an employer to recognize or bargain with a union may be prohibited when it exceeds statutory limits on recognitional or organizational picketing.
- The § 8(b)(7)(C) informational proviso does not protect picketing when the Board finds the purpose is not truthful public advice but pressure directed at neutral or secondary employees (including through delivery-entrance picketing and discouraging deliveries).
- A union’s direct demands for a contract, the content and continuity of picket signs, and picketing conduct affecting deliveries may support a Board inference of a recognitional object.
- On review of an NLRB order, the court enforces the order when the Board’s findings and inferences are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the NLRB’s order because the record supported the Board’s finding that Local 3’s picketing was aimed at securing employer recognition or bargaining and was not protected as purely informational picketing under § 8(b)(7)(C).


NLRB v. Loc. 3, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 317 F.2d 193 (2d Cir. 1963)