*3 MacKINNON, Before WRIGHT and Cir MARKEY,* Judges, and HOWARD T. cuit Judge, Chief United States Court of Cus Appeals. toms and Patent by for the court filed MacKIN- Opinion NON, Judge. Circuit WRIGHT, Dissenting opinion by filed Judge. Circuit MacKINNON, Judge: Circuit Employees General Service (“the Union”) petitions review set to an order of National Labor Rela- aside (“NLRB” Board”). Board or “the tions pursuant order was issued June 10(c) to of the Labor Rela- section National (“the Act”)1 as amended tions required the Union cease and desist from threatening picket Security the A-l Ser- (“the recogni- for Company Company”) vice disqualified time when it tion filing petition a valid to be certified under bargaining rep- 9 of the Act as the section Company’s employees. resentative of the for enforce- cross-applied The Board has order, jurisdiction of its is con- ment 10(e) court on this ferred 10(f) Act.2 * following designation pursuant National Labоr 28 U.S.C. 2. The sections of the Sitting pertinent decision. Act are to this Relations 293(a). § 8(b) provides: Section practice for a be an unfair labor It shall seq. et 1. 29 § U.S.C. agents— organization or its setting is not collective bargaining agreement of this case
The factual with the Independent is in the business complex. The Guards and Watchmen signed America, had providing guard services and a rival petitioner. union to Sever- not to tion, wise opinion, or the dissemination unfair labor that of, be construed other induce person subsection. gard That strued to as promise of benefit. provided, er contains no threat of organization, direct ately title, certify this filed the Board shall Section advising substantial Section sions shall able of this their collective ducted without bargain months a valid election under section ees: concerning representation any other labor from tified less such labor ognized accept resentative of requiring threaten any 159(c) U.S.C. U.S.C. The Nothing (B) (7) (C) (A) the pick up, or have a contract or employer title or the absence of a an period written, to the unless an effect of such be an nothing the be of this where within the publicity where such as the where the Board [*] expressing perform any of requiring any the results thereof: Provided title or select 9(b) provides: § 8(c) provides: employer § with a labor in picket raised this title permit the That commencement of such the 158(c) 158(b) (1970). in this constitute or individual deliver or accordance interest on the has been provisions of time unfair labor practice [*] finds to be representative printed, graphic, subchapter, in this course where an public (including employees when bargaining representative, un- his for the organization under section or оrganization any such labor employer paragraph (7) a being prohibit any picketing does not [*] employees, cause picketing not or cause services. employer an election in any petition such organization under act which would other- conducted, subparagraph (C) transport any goods employed by any with, forthwith, of section purpose with this object appropriate filed reprisal his views, [*] practice of an to be if a exceed may preceding part has employ any a labor employment, petition within reason- evidence of an organization to be thereof, and has been con- under thereof is forc- 159(c) currently showing [*] not argument, shall be con- lawfully recognize employer picketed, or force visual or without re- consumers) 159(c)(1) thirty days subchapter expression as the under this a forcing or picketing: truthfully such organiza- the members appropri- a and picketed, has been question employ- further, [*] wheth- of twelve provi- 159(c) form, other labor tois shall shall of rep- unit rec- this cer- or or or or or of a 29 U.S.C. § 29 U.S.C. § be conducted hearing upon tion; or tive as defined in subsection merce exists shall more individuals or labor the presented ing representative, if it the Board finds the which recognized by ing question exists, the ballot and shall recommendations with sented for collective a with an employer bership, organization other or subsection number of in their behalf guards employer be sentative subdivision thereof: bership, employees such Board shall not in sentative er, freedom in other Section (B) by Whenever The Board shall decide in each case wheth- (3) (A) by *4 guard this any accordance with such prescribed by this the Board purposes regional office, representative employer that such a has reasonable cause to believe that a the individual or labor decide that order persons purposes employees, any 9fC has individual or labor section; it shall if subchapter, 9(c)(1) provides: employer’s premises; organization isor to enforce an an of or to such to him a claim to be 159(c)(1) (1970). 159(b) (1970). declines shall been (a) employees (i) exercising employees employee [*] a employer, alleging of collective shall representation due notice. Such the rules assure to unit, affiliated their petition of this organization upon protect direct if it investigate certified or is alleging certify the Board— question any an officer or provide representative # be is no defined in to who shall not make other than employer сraft bargaining the unit the record of such hear- includes, against employees which admits to mem- individual unit is protect property certified as recognize or in a section, shall have been the Provided, employees directly respect longer the results thereof. [*] group unit, regulations organization acting organizations that a substantial election wish to be rights guaranteed bargaining such safety admits to mem- appropriate affecting appropriate being currently (a) as the an representation subsection together guards. plant unit, recognized [*] and that their but no labor a of organization, or hearing may employee employed or petition that one or thereto. their appropriate of this sec- representa- defined in of employees the the fullest That (ii) indirectly bargain- persons shall be # as unit of seсret repre- assert repre- repre- com- filed, have with may any and (a) If un- ing practice this collec- constituted an unfair signing labor after al months attorney 8(b)(7)(C)6 subparagraph der agreement, bargaining tive despite because this threat was contacted petitioner fact — the Un- terminology the latter had and disavowals of of contracts both complain engage recognitional ion —a threat contractors allegedly nonunion signed with when pay- it was at a time the Union was possibility and also of disqualified A from valid elec- filing and benefits. law wages ing substandard petition being tion as the between Un- certified arranged conference agent. recognized President of the collective attorney and the ion’s for the that actual “area standards” lawyer which Un- conceded Company, picketing, engage or a threat in such Company’s President ion clear made have would receive from would not constituted his business the benefits 8(b)(7)(C).7 unfair practice the retaliation it labor joining occasion, Shortly however, in 1975 to if it did not do so.3 had expect could “pierce” picket- contacted Il- the veil of “area standards” thereafter, lawyer the Union’s recognitional and find a motive in a Bell, major of business for source linois holding information con- decision same Union and requested Company, guards the same that acted for the Union employed lawyer Bell sites cerning prac- here had in an engaged stated unfair Company, and from the tice,8 again A-l and it does so once in this case. employment of the Secur- conditions “substandard.” Company were ity Service presented Three issues are in the instant time, sent letter At the same legal one is purely case. Two are *5 with what was threatening it Company the by the premised on a factual determination i. “area standards” to as referred First, the NLRB. should Landrum-Griffin working e., protest substandard picketing to proscribe, to Act9 construed in certain conditions,4 requested and certain informa- circumstances, as mere threats exact of those condi- the nature tion about Second, picketing. well as actual does the any desire to letter disavowed The tions. Act allow the “reasonable period recognize the Company the encourage thirty days” provided recogni- exceed bargaining sign collective or to Union subparagraph tional Company did not it. The with contract though the involved even Union picketing ensued. and no respond, disqualified recog- from certification as a complaint, bargaining agent the nized collective under the Company’s the Upon Third, decision,5 9(b)(3) terms of of Act.10 held that the the NLRB, in a 3-2 picket- is the determination NLRB that the threatening “area standards” letter lawyer supra. emphasized that unless 6. See note 2 3. The Union’s agreed associated with to become the it, Company’s would restrict 32; the Union Respondent’s 7. See Build- Brief at Houston allegedly opportunities as it had done (Claude business Ev- & Construction Trades Council signed guard companies who had with other Co.), 136 erett Construction Independent agreements Guards and with the J.A. 6. of America. Watchmen Union, Employees No. 8. General Service wage gauge and benefit lev- of standard Employees Interna- Affiliated With Service Book,” the “Blue the Union was els used (R.R.S. Security tional Inc. AFL-CIO simply the collective Division), Investigation and Service Board Case agreement between the Union and Associ- 13-CC-836, 22, 1975, (January Nos. 13-CP-277 Agеncies. agree- This and Patrol ated Guard unpublished). guards approximately of ment covered 90% Chicago metropolitan area. Petitioner’s in the 86-257, Sept. of 9. Pub.Law 12; J.A. 15 n.18. Brief at Stat. 519. Jenkins, and Walther Penello 5. Members See nn. Murphy majority; con- Chairman formed part; part Member and dissented curred Fanning dissented. of were threats tween the introductory the Union language 8(b)(7) made
threats
picket-
standards”
whole,
not “area
recognitional,
as a
which explicitly encompasses
by substantial evidence.11
ing supported
picket,”
“threats to
the opening phrase
and
interpretation
the Board’s
find that
We
(C).
subparagraph
conflict,
Given such a
more
Act is both
rea-
Landrum-Griffin
Petitioner
one
insists that
must examine
legis-
consonant with
and more
sonable
legislative
intent in order properly to
Petitioner’s,
than the
and its
lative intent
interpret
Characterizing
statute.
the Union’s threat as
characterization
Landrum-Griffin Act
“legis
result of
picketing is
recognitional
sup-
involving
one
lative compromise reached as a result of
According-
evidence.
by substantial
ported
intense conflict between competing inter
enforcement of the Board’s
grant
ly,
ests,”
the Union asserts—without adduc
petition.
deny the Union’s
order
ing significantly more evidence from the
legislative history
the general
than
“com
I
promise” nature of the Landrum-Griffin
subpara
contends
Petitioner
Act15—that
the final
subpara
version of
8(b)(7)
the Act
(C)
paragraph
graph
graph 8(b)(7)(C)restricted the scope of that
picketing, not mere
actual
regulates
provision
regulating
actual instances of
However,
con
picket.
threats
picketing.
introductory language of
cedes
Assuming arguendo that
ap-
there
(A)
(B)
8(b)(7)
subparagraphs
parent incоnsistency between the broad lan-
encompass threats
paragraph12
guage introducing 8(b)(7) and the opening
Any
par
itself.
picket as well
phrase
8(b)(7)(C)16
which necessitates an
that the in
attempting
demonstrate
ty
legislative
examination of the
history in
troductory wording of
section in a statute
order to illuminate the meaning
inapplicable to one of its
stat-
should be deemed
(this
subsections,
history would,
course,
ute
despite
wording’s
this
conceded
be rele-
the entire rest of the section vant even
applicability
apparent
were there no such
clearly
carry
heavy
per
conflict),
must
burden
we feel that Petitioner has mis-
suasion,
we conclude that Petitioner
construed
Congress.
the intent of
Certain-
*6
successfully discharged
not
that
has
burden
ly
8(b)(7)(C)
the fact
begins with a
in this case.
reference to “such picketing” rather than
picketing or
“such
threats to picket” is not
argument
is
The basis for the Union’s
persuasive
a legislative
indication of
pur-
prefacing
in
Congress,
subparagraph
pose
regulate
not to
such
A
threats.
stat-
(C)
phrase
with the
found
either
—not
ute
not
to be read
(A)
(B)
overliterally.17 It
or
has
subparagraph
—-“Where
long been
conducted,”
settled
Congress
been
meant
to
that acts of
picketing has
be
purview
interpreted
light
must
spirit
exclude mere threats from the
of
subparagraph.13
they
The Union maintains which
were written and the reasons
that there is
“irreconcilible” conflict be
for their enactment.18 Grammatically, as
Loyal
11. J.A. 7-9.
arch Life Ins. Co. v.
Protective Life Ins.
Co.,
841,
(2d
1963),
845
Cir.
cert.
12. See
2
note
denied,
952,
968,
376 U.S.
11
84 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
(1964) (“With
[Judge
971
his
Learned Hand]
13. Petitioner’s Brief
21-32.
eloquence
customary
duty
he stated that ‘the
of
ascertaining
meaning
[the]
[of
statute]
is dif
14.
Id. at 22.
best,
way missing
ficult at
and one certain
of
it
”).
reading
literally
.
.
. .’
15.
Id. at 28-32.
18. National Woodwork Mfrs.
v.
Ass’n
United
But
see text at note 28.
States,
612,
1250,
386 U.S.
87 S.Ct.
18 L.Ed.2d
Lynch
Overholser,
705, 710,
(1967);
Massachusetts,
369 U.S.
357
Jacobson v.
358,
(1962);
(1905);
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
Clark v.
Ue-
U.S.
25 S.Ct.
L.Ed.
A.G.,
Holy
States,
Finanz-Korporation,
Trinity
bersee
332 U.S.
Church v. United
143 U.S.
488-89,
(1947);
(1892);
Congress did certified elections under subpara- specifically concerned, of conduct type graph the same are considerations of subparagraphs the other covered whether or not petitioner could ulti- 8(b)(7). mately be certified aas collective bargain- ing agent. 8(b)(7)(C)states that the NLRB II shall petitions consider under that section 8(b)(7)(C), the terms of regard provisions Under “without to the of section picket, a thrеat to constitutes picketing, 9(c)(1)38 or the showing absence of a practice petition unfair labor unless a the part substantial interest on within with the NLRB a reasonable filed organization.” thirty days requesting exceed not to period The argues the provision election to expedited certified determine the Board 8(b)(7)(C)petitions shall consider proper representa collective without regard 9(c)(1) section mandates recognition may continue its tive. A union issues whether question valid period.” during this “reasonable picketing al representation has been raised explicitly are felt, case, the NLRB how In the instant removed from the Board’s consideration in ever, more that the time limitation was acting upon petitions. such proper it was not neces inoperative, less and that course, in where the petitioner a.situаtion sary to determine whether or not Petition is, cannot be certified maintains, Petitioner er’s threat had continued for a for the Board to hold an election and certify thirty period exceeding days, reasonable result, the arithmetical even it though can- that, because the Board as the determined certify Union as the bargaining question Union in voluntarily had admitted representative.39 Petitioner contends that employees into its membership other than point was not to bar all guards, it long had—under a line NLRB recognitional uncertifiable precedent35 9(b)(3) and section of the Act36 groups, but which con- disqualified itself being certified as tinues for more than a reasonable time. representative the collective bargaining Petitioner’s Brief at 24. The short answer guard employees. Because Petitioner could to this contention is that any amount of certified, never be the Board any ruled that recognitional picketing by an unrecogniza- for a petition certified election that group ble is unreasonable. pe- Because the might nullity file would be a and that ac tition process is not a nullity under this cordingly, “any recognitional picketing of interpretation of 8(b)(7)(C),the Union con- Respondent Security A-l [here tends that it cannot be held—due to the up might engage for whatever Petitioner] thirty “grace day period” violation of duration, would be a violation of section —in the Act. added.) 8(b)(7)(C).”37 (Emphasis [sic] Thus, the mo Union violated We are unconvinced this somewhat recognitional ment it threatened imaginative interpretation that the Peti- anot month later. tioner have give statute, would us hand, accept nor will we argues
Petitioner
the Union’s
other
invitation to
regard
wording
8(b)(7)(C) expressly
9(b)(3)
makes
prohibit-
irrelevant,
petitions
insofar as
the status
certification of
containing
unions
Drivers, Chauffeurs,
supra.
& 36. See
35.
Warehousemen
note
I.B.T.,
Helpers,
Local Union
et
No.
al.
a/w
(Wells Fargo
Corp.),
Armored
Service
citing
37.
J.A.
the cases cited in footnote 35
(1975),
en-
No.
supra.
L.R.R.M.
Drivers,
forced,
Chauffeurs,
&
Warehousemen
Helpers,
N.L.R.B.,
Local No.
a/w I.B.T. v.
See
note
U.S.App.D.C.
(1977);
371
nullity
collec
tition
such a union a
as the
on its face.
non-guards
guards
both
as That the Board has
guards,
occasionally
a
for
allowed
agent
bargaining
tive
participate
non-certifiable union to
in
petitions
a cer-
to the status
totally unrelated
The
tified election and receive an
8(b)(7)(C).
arithmetical
elections
certified
for
has
certification
results
does not mean
point
on this
adopts
Board
position
any right
in
the uniоn has
to participate,
this court
that
sustained
recently been
the Board must delay
nor
the safe-
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
Drivers,
8(b)(7)(C)
designed
was
(Wells Fargo
guards that
to ex-
v. NLRB
No. 71
Helpers
employer
because of the possi-
180 U.S.
tend to
Corporation),
Service
Armored
may
we
that a union
file a futile
(1977),
bility
192,
F.2d 1368
App.D.C.
dilatory petition
from the
for an election it
suggest deviation
cannot
no reason
see
In
in
the union
put
may
forward.
win and which
often
result there
or
rationale
8(b)(7)(C)
participate.
even
It should also
pointed
we
out
be noted
opinion,
9(c)(1),
by way
specifying
after
contemplate picketing
certain re-
“appears
election,”40
quirements
filing petitions relating
and drew
for
to an
prelude
certification, additionally provides
a
party
that where
that the
conclusion
logical
required
hearing
election as Boаrd is not
to hold a
winning an
from
disqualified
he can
to direct an election unless it first finds
representative,
bargaining
certified
.
question
representation
that are
that “a
procedures
make use of
.
.
. .” It is hard to find that a
result.41 Those
exists
lead to that
intended
peti-
exists if the
question
representation
the Board has allowed
in which
cases
being certified as
disqualified
tioner is
from
in
participate
union to
non-certifiable
representative.
of such
right
not the
established
election
only the
but rather
participate,
unions to
of our deci-
necessary consequence
The
do
them to
Board to allow
discretion
eligible
recog-
to be
only groups
sion is
exper
that area
so,
“within
a discretion
take
recognition
for
nized can
interfere,”
courts hesitate
tise in
“grace
up
thirty day
advantage of
1376,
200,
at
553 F.2d
U.S.App.D.C.
recogni-
period” provided
Printing Press
Newspaper
Miami
citing
The reasonableness of this
picketing.
tional
McCulloch, 116
Local 46
men’s
suggests that it is in fact a far more
result
993,
n.11,
F.2d
U.S.App.D.C.
plausible interpretation of the
rational and
(1963).
998 n.11
legislating
intent in
the Land-
congressional
Act than the tortured construc-
dif-
rum-Griffin
factually slightly
case
present
would have
adopt.
that Petitioner
us
there the
tion
in that
Fargo
Wells
ferent
8(b)(7), Congress
Throughout
paragraph
petitioner’s
actually dismissed
had
NLRB
problems
concerned with the
election,
explicitly
was
whereas
for an
request
it
filed;
recognitional picketing43; and
is far-
but
petition
here no
implicitly
intended
argue
is on all
fetched
Fargo
underlying Wells
principle
procedure to allow
special
to establish
adopt
disposing
with that
fours
engage
in such
non-recognizable unions
of a
characteristics
appeal. When
this
logi-
seеm
Prima facie it would
picketing.
it from becom-
conclusively preclude
union
that such unions would be
cal to assume
the Board
representative,
certified
ing a
picketing.
from such
would
8(b)(7)(C) pe-
precluded
may consider
discretion
its
g.,
Agency,
Burns International Detective
42. E.
F.2d at
40. 553
Inc.,
compromise indeed most —so portions but the basic thrust Ill clearly statute considered here was alleviat- The mere subparagraph fact that ing hardships employers by caused to 8(b)(7)(C) covers threats to picket well as practices unfair labor of unions. This picketing will bring actual not alone Peti case, being the it is hard to credit Petition- within the suggestion purview tioner’s conduct er’s Congress meant recognitional Act unless there was a provide method unions, organizational objective underlying the Un recognition, foreclosed from could granted activity.46 pick an is well settled that opportunity to em- ion’s harass ployers through recognitional eting merely protest substandard picketing. work probably One would more not an expect prac conditions is unfair abso- Thus, on picketing lute bar 8(b)(7)(C).47 uncertifiable tice threat denied, (9th 1960), cert. “comprehensive 934, establishes Cir. 366 U.S. recognitional 1659, restricting organiza code” S.Ct. 6 L.Ed.2d Drivers, Chauffeurs, tional Helpers, (Curtis Warehousemen & Local 639 Cox, cit., 45. See note 44 See also op. Bros.), 362 U.S. supra S.Ct. note 262-270. purpose A L.Ed.2d of the Land- impose Act was to limita rum-Griffin “drastic supra, See note recognitional organizational pick tions” Department Specialty Employ eting, Store 47. United Association Plumbers Brown, ees, Local 1265 v. (Keith Riggs Plumbing), 137 NLRB president would also not be refuted to some extent in such engage Petitioner practice, and unfair labor at his conference with the it threatened maintains attorney. Union’s It is unlikely, and the not to just protest, such a designed was Board certainly justified in refusing to recognition for the Union.48 secure believe, that Petitioner was motivated to NLRB, despite protestations however— threaten picketing exclusively by such dubi- that there was a Union—determined ous evidence of substandard conditions at cond object in Petitioner’s reeognitional Indeed, Company. the letter in which question is a As this determination uct.49 the Union Security threatened A-l with fact, if it is upheld it must be here *12 picketing also request contained a first evidence.50 supported by substantial type of information which the Union but that there question There can be no would need in order to know with confi- support was substantial evidence dence whether fact the Company fell concerning the Union’s findings Board’s below the Clearly area standard.53 this fact necessary not It is motivation. suggests that it was at least not solely be reeognitional motive organizational concerning information the conditions of predominant or even the either the sole employment at the Company which had alleged the conduct to vio- objective behind elicited Petitioner’s threat picket. 8(b)(7)(C).51 provi- This subparagraph late Not is the evidence of area stan- applies so of the Landrum-Griffin sion dards violations the Company so sketchy organization is even long recognition it is hard to believe that the Union many objectives picketing in the among one would in fact have relied on it alone in picket, and it would strain or threat deciding to threaten picketing, but also the recognition was credulity to maintain description ample A short NLRB had objective recogni- not an here. indications that a in this suf- regard the NLRB’s evidence tional motive was in fact at During work. that substantial evi- to demonstrate fices the conference with the President of A-l supported the Board’s decision. dence Security, lawyer Petitioner’s was blunt in encouragement his Company to deal conditions evidence of substandard The with the and went so far as to allegedly moved Peti- emphasize advantages employer to the was picketing threaten unclear tioner to doing and the retaliatory in the so action particularly convincing first and not instance,52 even was this information would attend a refusal to cooperate with (1962); Building Houston & Construction lacked sufficient information to de- (Claude wages Everett Construction Trades Council termine that the оr benefits of the Com- 321, (1962). Co.), pany 136 NLRB example, were substandard. J.A. 7. For although Company’s wage schedule was 15-21. 48. Petitioner’s Brief at standard, somewhat below the Union did not inquire possible fringe into benefit over and 49. J.A. 7-11. usually provided above that or into the total Local Joint Executive Board 50. San Francisco Company. reeognitional labor cost A NLRB, U.S.App. Culinary Workers v. motive can be inferred from the failure of a 234, 238-239, 794, (1974); 501 F.2d 798-99 D.C. legitimate attempt union to make a to deter- NLRB, Packing Company v. 377 F.2d National substandard, if mine conditions are NLRB v. Cox, cit., 800, 1967); supra, (10th op. Cir. Carpenters United Brotherhood of and Joiners 43, note at 266-67. America, 1255, 450 F.2d (9th 1971); Building Cir. Centralia and Con- Executive Board San Francisco Local Joint NLRB, struction Trades Council v. 124 U.S. NLRB, Culinary U.S.App. v. Workers 212, 214, App.D.C. 363 F.2d n.9, (1974); 799 n.9 501 F.2d D.C. Building and Trades Coun- Dallas Construction In this letter the Union made a formal re- NLRB, U.S.App.D.C. cil quest concerning hourly wages, for infоrmation benefits, fringe wage progression. the Trial Examiner both 52. The Board and threatened found that at the times Petitioner proof that the upon is true Union’s Board acted Union.54 substantial Security explicitly correspondence with A-l evidence. reaching interest in any Union
disclaimed Finding regu- threats to are Company,55but such self- with the contract lated under subparagraph 8(b)(7)(C); that a necessarily not be serving avowals need union disqualified from certification as a acting credited,56 clearly and the NLRB recognized collective bargaining agent may authority and on sub- statutory its within engage recognitional or organization- it refused to take evidence when stantial al “for a reasonable period value. In this con- remarks at face these days” thirty exceed provisions consequence that of some it is a fact nection 8(b)(7)(C); and that substantial evidence recently lawyer had same Union and supported the Board’s determination that found in violation been the picketing which Petitioner threatened correspondence with the case where their in this case was part motivated at least in similar company made ritualistic involved by a recognitional objective, deny recognitional motives.57 disclaimers petition Union’s and grant the Board en- acting partly been out may well have forcement of order. its it believed to concern over what So ordered. working condi- of substandard possibility *13 Security, but this is at A-l insuffi- tions WRIGHT, J. SKELLY Judge, Circuit dis- liability to immunize Petitioner cient senting: Act.58 More- the Landrum-Griffin over, object even if the Union’s was not dissent, I respectfully for the reasons recognition, purpose a union’s formal gain stated (now then Chairman Member) where it “recognitional” attempts deemеd Murphy (now Chairman) and then Member bargaining agreement force its collective Fanning of National Labor Relations represent.59 upon persons it does Peti- Board. See Service Employees General Un up insistence that the live tioner’s 73, 434, ion Local No. NLRB 437-440 standards may its own “Blue Book” rea- sonably be so characterized.60 NLRB probative recog- other evidence cites aspects of the Union’s
nitional threats it unnecessary but we find to dis-
picket61 they raise, points
cuss the further because provide ample few we have mentioned Ass’n, 59. J.A. 38. Retail Clerks International Local Un- Mart, (State Inc.), 818, ion No. 899 166 NLRB (1967), per curiam, 55. The letter referred to the text at note 53 822-23 enforced 404 F.2d opened: previ- (9th 1969); accord, Building “Please be advised indicated Cir. Centralia ously Employees NLRB, that General Service & Construction Trades Council v. AFL-CIO, 73, 212, U.S.App.D.C. 213-214, Local No. has no desire to have 363 F.2d 700- you execute a with our Local. contract Our your agency you concern with is that provide your employees which benefits was, all, 60. The “Blue Book” after the text of prevailing meet standards established a con- agreement the Union’s collective guard tract between Local and a number of employers, supra. with other see note 4 companies that it has under contract.” example, testimony 61. For of the Union’s Carpenters Local No. United lawyer hearing at the before the Trial Examiner Carpenters Brotherhood Joiners facially was inconsistent and revealed that his America, (9th 1966); 356 F.2d 465-66 Cir. Compa- recollection of his conference with the NLRB v. Local International Brotherhood ny’s President, allegedly convinced him Teamsters, (2d 1963). Cir. Security, of the substandard conditions at A-l vague lacking the sort of “hard supra. 57. See text at note 8 necessary facts” to demonstrate area standards inadequacies. Respondent’s Brief 47-48. 58. See note 51