Int'l Hod Carriers, Etc., Local No. 41, AFL-CIO

78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD such allegations be dismissed . As to affirmative relief, I shall not direct that the customary notice to employees be posted . It is undisputed that pursuant to the abor- tive settlement agreement heretofore described, Respondent has already posted a notice to its employees stating, inter alia, that it would not interfere with the organiza- tional rights of its employees and that it would not interrogate its employees concern- ing the Guild . Under these circumstances , it would be an idle gesture to require a second posting of a virtually identical notice. See N.L.R.B. v. National Biscuit Company, 185 F. 2d 123 (C.A. 3). The remedial purposes of the Act will be sufficiently served in the instant case by the entry of a cease-and-desist provision. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Journal Gazette Company is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. American Newspaper Guild , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By coercively interrogating its employees, the Journal Gazette has interfered. with, restrained, and coerced its employees within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Respondent has not engaged in other unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of. America, Local No. 41 , AFL-CIO and Calumet Con- tractors Association and George DeJong. Case No. 13-CC-20L. February 10, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On June 14, 1960, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in and was not: engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Coun- sel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and finds merit in the General Counsel's exception and adopts the findings of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith. 130 NLRB No. 17. INT'L IBOD CARRIERS, ETC., LOCAL NO. 41, AFL-CIO 79 The complaint alleged that Respondent violated Section 8(b) (4) (C) of the Act by picketing Calumet Contractors Association, herein called the Association, and George DeJong, herein called DeJong, in order to force them to recognize and bargain with Respondent as rep- resentative of their employees , at a time when another labor organi- zation had been certified as representative of such employees. The Trial Examiner concluded that the picketing did not have as an object the seeking of such recognition or bargaining rights by Re- spondent, and therefore was not violative of Section 8(b) (4) (C). We do not agree. The essential facts are not in dispute . On August 5, 1958, Christian Building Trades, Local 12, Christian Labor Association of the United States, was certified by the Board as collective -bargaining representa- tive of employees of members of the Association . DeJong is a mem- ber of the Association . Respondent herein, while disclaiming an in- terest in representing the employees involved, intervened in the representation case to contest the appropriateness of the unit. Seven other craft unions intervened for the same purpose. On October 28, 1958, DeJong commenced work under a contract to erect a church in Hammond, Indiana. DeJong subcontracted most of the work. On November 3, 1958, Respondent commenced picketing the church site. Picketing continued thereafter from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, until June 5, 1959. It was ended by an injunction. From November 4, the legend on the picket sign read: NOTICE TO PUBLIC The work being performed by the following contractor is not being done by qualified BUILDING TRADES CRAFTSMEN The prevailing rate of pay & conditions are not being met This notice is addressed only to the general public & not to the employers or employees on the job GEO DeJONG R EMPLOYER MEMBERS OF THE CALUMET CONTRACTORS ASS'N LABOR UNION #41 AFL-CIO 80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In addition to the picket sign legend, the Respondent also dis- tributed a "handbill," which read : NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The sole purpose of patrolling this job site is to alert the public that the work being performed is not being done by qualified BUILDING TRADES CRAFTSMEN. It is to inform the pub- lic that the prevailing rate of pay and conditions are not being met on this job. THIS NOTICE IS ADDRESSED ONLY TO THE PUBLIC IT IS NOT ADDRESSED TO ANY EMPLOYER OR TO ANY EMPLOYEES. There is no intent or attempt to induce or encourage any employees of any employer to engage in a refusal to work, transport or otherwise handle or work on any goods, materials, etc. No one is requested to cease performing any serv- ices. No one is requested to cease doing business with any person. There is no intent to have any particular work assigned to any- one, nor is there an intent to seek recognition or to start bargaining. We believe that the people residing in this area should be familiar with what is going on and that is the sole purpose of the patrolling. LOCAL 41 INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, AFL-CIO. The work on the project was suspended from early November 1958 until March ,12, 1959; due mainly to inclement weather. During this period there was a picket at the jobsite. After work resumed a picket was present at all times during working hours, Monday through Fri- day. The picket generally remained in a car parked near the entrance to the construction area, 'but left- the. car to patrol whenever persons, including subcontractors' employees, approached the job. Respondent's president testified that there would have been no picketing had the Association and DeJong met the prevailing rates of R pay and conditions, and that Respondent's purpose in picketing was to obtain such prevailing rates and conditions on all jobs. He further testified that the handbill was given to the picket to pass out to any person approaching the job who might wish to know what was going on, and that there was no other distribution by Respondent of the handbill, or other form of advertising concerning the Respond- ent's purpose in picketing. It was stipulated by the parties that Respondent did not request recognition or demand bargaining of DeJong or the Association, or of any members of the Association, as the representative of employees. (A) The Trial Examiner assumed, without deciding, that Re- spondent induced employees by virtue of its picketing. It is clear, INT'L HOD CARRIERS, ETC., LOCAL NO. 41, AFL-CIO 81 and we find that the picketing constituted inducement.' The mainte- nance of a picket line before employee entrances-the literal appeal of picket signs notwithstanding-constitutes an act of inducement or encouragement of employees, who must perform services behind the picket line, to engage in a concerted refusal to perform services for their employer; and such picketing-whether or not it results in a strike or concerted refusal to work by employees-is within the reach of Section 8 (b) (4) of the Act, if directed to one of the objectives therein prohibited.2 (B) In connection with the question of Respondent's object in so picketing, the Respondent asserts that since its picketing was solely for the purpose of informing the public that DeJong and the Associa- tion were not meeting prevailing rates of pay and conditions; and that it did not want, nor did it ever request, recognition or bargaining from either DeJong or the Association, it did not have an objective proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act. In support of this as- sertion, Respondent contends that the proscribed object-recognition or bargaining -of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) has reference to an appropriate bargaining unit; that the certified unit herein is inappropriate, a position consistently taken by Respondent; and that Respondent has no interest in representing employees in such a unit. We cannot ac- cept this contention.' While, clearly, no express demand for recognition or bargaining was made, it is equally clear that one of the objects of Respondent's picketing was to force DeJong and the Association to meet the "pre- vailing rate of pay and conditions" for the area. It is well estab- lished that a union's picketing for prevailing rates of pay and condi- tions of employment constitutes an attempt to obtain conditions and concessions normally resulting from collective bargaining, and con- I There is evidence in the record showing that the picket would approach and engage in conversation with employees of subcontractors as they came up to the jobsite ; that on one occasion the picket left the front of the site and went to the rear to speak with a truckdriver hauling in supplies , and noted the name and address on the truck , and that some employees approached by the picket did not go to work, that some went on to work, worked a short while , left, then returned later and continued working. There is, however, no evidence concerning the subject of the conversations between the picket and such employees There is evidence, moreover , that on another occasion the employees of a subcontractor engaged in conversation with Respondent 's president, and when they asked about working, were told it "was their prerogative " An official of the subcontractor then spoke to Respondent's president, and shortly thereafter told Delong that the subcontractor would not work on the church job. We note these events, but we do not deem it necessary to pass upon , or decide, their legal effect, in view of our decision herein that employees were induced by virtue of Respondent's picketing. 2 District Lodge No 24, International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO (Industrial Chrome Plating Co ), 121 NLRB 1298, 1300 ; Knit Goods li'orkere' Union, Local 155, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO (James Knitting Mills, Inc ), 117 NLRB 1468 , 1469; United Brotherhood of Carpenters d Joiners of America, Local Union No 978, AFL-CIO, et at, 120 NLRB 610, 618 3 To the extent that Respondent's defense is based upon the alleged inappropriateness of the certified unit, it is plainly without merit 597254-61-vol. 130-7 82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stitutes an attempt by the union to force itself on employees as their bargaining agent.' Respondent's disclaimer of interest in the bar- gaining unit, indeed its affirmative statement that it would never bar- gain in such a unit, is, therefore, in the circumstances here present, an inadequate defense; for despite Respondent's disclaimer, the pick- eting necessarily had as its ultimate end the substitution of Respond- ent for the Christian Labor Association, the certified bargaining agent. It is immaterial, moreover, that Respondent may have had other objects since recognition or bargaining need not be the sole object of the picketing to be violative of Section 8(b) (4) (C). It is sufficient if an object of the picketing be one proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) of the Act.' We conclude, therefore, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the picketing of the DeJong construction site by Respondent was in- tended to induce and encourage the employees of DeJong, the em- ployees of members of the Association, as well as employees of other employers, concertedly to refuse to perform employment services for their employers, with an object of forcing or requiring DeJong and the Association to recognize and bargain with Respondent at a time when another labor organization had been certified by the Board as the representative of the employer's employees. We therefore find that Respondent has engaged in conduct proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (C) of the Act. THE RE18TEDY Having found that the Respondent has violated Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act, as amended, we will order that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Calumet Contractors Association, Hammond, Indiana, engaged in, and during all times material was engaged in, commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. George DeJong, Lansing, Illinois, is engaged in, and during all times material was engaged in, commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. * Auto Trades Council o f Seattle, et at, and West Seattle Dodge, Inc , et at , 125 NLRB 729; Industi sal Chrome Plating Co ., supra, 1300, Francis Plating Co , 109 NLRB 35; Petrie's, an Operating Division of Red Robin Stores, Inc , 108 NLRB 1318 The instant case is distinguishable from Radio Broadcast Technicians, etc (WKRG-TV, Inc.), 123 NLRB 507, an 8(b) (1) (A) case, upon which the Trial Examiner relies and Respondent cites There , unlike here, the union was not seeking to impose rates of pay and condi- tions of employment upon the employer or its employees after a representation election was concluded in which another labor union was certified There the union's effort was directed toward preserving relations with other employers whose employees it represented. Moreover, it advertised this objective to the public and directly to advertisers. 5 N L R B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, et at, 341 U.S. 675, 688, 689 INT'L HOD CARRIERS, ETC., LOCAL NO. 41, AFL-CIO 83 3. International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local No. 41, AFL-CIO, and Christian Building Trades Local 12, Christian Labor Association of the United States, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 4. By picketing Calumet Contractors Association and George De- Jong, and by inducing and encouraging the employees of DeJong, the employees of members of the Association, and the employees of other employers to concertedly refuse to perform employment services for their employers, with an object of forcing or requiring DeJong and the Association to recognize and bargain with it at a time when an- other labor organization had been certified by the Board as repre- sentative of the said employers' employees, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local No. 41, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist during the effective period of the certification issued by the National Labor Relations Board on August 5, 1958, in Case No. 13-RC-5479 (not published in NLRB volumes), or any other certification by the Board, other than one to Respondent, from en- gaging in, or inducing and encouraging the employees of members of Calumet Contractors Association and of George DeJong to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment, to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform services, where an object thereof is to force or require Calumet Contractors As- sociation and George DeJong to recognize or bargain with Respondent as the representative of any employees of members of Calumet Con- tractors Association and George DeJong in the collective-bargaining unit covered by such certification. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post immediately in its business offices, copies of the notice at- tached hereto marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, 0In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." 84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD after being duly signed by an official representative of Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Upon request of the aforesaid Regional Director, Respondent shall supply him with a sufficient number of copies of said notice for posting by Calumet Contractors Association and by George DeJong, if they be willing, in their respective offices where notices to employees are customarily posted. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of the Decision and Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE TO OUR MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF GEORGE DEJONG AND THE CALUMET CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify all our members and the employees of George DeJong and Calumet Contractors Association, that : During the effective period of the certification of employee representative issued by the National Labor Relations Board on August 5, 1958, in Case No. 13-RC-5479, or any other certification of a labor organization, other than one to ourselves, we will not engage in, or encourage the employees of members of Calumet Contractors Association and of George DeJong to engage in, a concerted refusal in the course of their employment, to use, manu- facture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform services where an object thereof is to force or require Calumet Contractors Association and George DeJong to recognize or bargain with us as the representative of any employees of members of Calumet Contractors Association and of George DeJong in the collective- bargaining unit covered by such certification. INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS' UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 41, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- By---------------------=--------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INT'L HOD CARRIERS, ETC., LOCAL NO. 41, AFL-CIO 85 INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding was heard before the duly designated Trial Examiner in Chicago, Illinois, on April 5 and 6, 1960. The sole issue litigated was whether International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of America, Local No. 41, AFL-CIO (herein called Respondent or Respondent Union), violated Section 8(b)(4)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act).' After the hearing the General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs which the Trial Examiner has considered. Upon the entire record, and from his observations of witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS INVOLVED Calumet Contractors Association is an association composed of general contractors and subcontractors who are engaged in the building and construction industry in the vicinity of Hammond, Indiana. In the course and conduct of their business operations the Association's members, annually, purchase over $50,000 worth of materials and supplies which are shipped to said members in the State of Indiana from points outside of said State. George DeJong is a general contractor and a member of the Calumet Contractors Association. His principal office is located in Lansing, Illinois. In the course and conduct of his business operations during 1958 DeJong rendered services outside of Illinois valued at approximately $50,000. No jurisdictional issue, is involved herein. The evidence adduced reveals that the above-mentioned employers are engaged in business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act and that the Board 's requirements for the asser- tion of jurisdiction have been satisfied. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Respondent and Christian Building Trades Local 12, Christian Labor Association of the United States, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) and Section 8(b) (4) (C) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Issue On August 5, 1958, Christian Building Trades Local 12, Christian Labor Asso- ciation of the United States (herein called Local 12), was certified by this Board as the collective-bargaining representative for the following employees of the Calumet Contractors Association: All employees of the employer in Indiana and Illinois, including craft journey- men and apprentices, laborers, machine operators, and truckdrivers, but ex- cluding office clerical employees , professional employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. In the fall of 1958, George DeJong was awarded a contract to erect a church in Hammond, Indiana. About the same time that construction commenced Respondent commenced picketing the construction site. The issue herein is whether an object of this picketing was forcing or requiring the Calumet Contractors Association and its members, including George DeJong, to recognize or bargain with Respondent as the representative of the employees in the unit set forth above in the face of the certification previously mentioned.2 i Section 8(b) (4) (C) provides • "It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organi- zation or its agents-(4) (i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual . . . to engage In, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process . . . or work on any goods . . . or to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person . . . where in either case an object thereof is : . . . (C) forcing or requiring any employer to recognize or bargain with a particular labor organization as the representative of his employees if another labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees . . . a The complaint alleges that the picketing induced and encouraged employees of George DeJong, the Association, and of other employers to engage in a strike or concerted re- fusal to work or handle goods and materials and that an object of said picketing was to 86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The facts In April 1957 Local 12 filed a petition with the Board seeking to be certified and designated as the collective-bargaining representative for the employees in the unit set forth above. During the course of the representation proceedings Respond- ent intervened for the limited purpose of contesting the appropriateness of the unit and contended that the unit was inappropriate on the grounds that ( 1) it is not supported by a multiemployer bargaining history and (2 ) it would join various building trade craftsmen in the same unit . Respondent disclaimed any interest in representing the employees involved and asked for dismissal of the petition on the grounds noted above. The Board rejected Respondent's contentions (see Direc- tion of Election in Case No. 13-RC-5479, not published in NLRB volumes) and, as noted above, subsequently (on August 5, 1958) certified Local 12. In the fall of 1958 George DeJong was awarded a contract to erect a church in Hammond, Indiana. The construction site was at 167th Street and Bering Avenue in Hammond which was across from the Woodmar Shopping Center-a large shopping area directly across the street from the construction site. The shopping center's exit driveway was so located that a patron leaving the shopping center would be facing the construction site. Construction of the church commenced on October 28, 1958. It was completed in August 1959.3 George DeJong performed the carpentry work with his own employees and the specialized work, such as masonry, and plumbing, through subcontractors. On November 3 or 4, 1958 , Respondent commenced picketing the construction site. Thereafter, the picketing occurred Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m , until June 5, 1959, and was at all times peaceful picketing by "one-man picket." The legend on the picket sign read: NOTICE TO PUBLIC The work being performed by the following contractor is not being done by qualified BUILDING TRADES CRAFTSMEN The prevailing rate of pay & conditions are not being met This notice is addressed only to the. general public & not to the employers or employees on the job GEO DeJONG & EMPLOYER MEMBERS OF THE CALUMET CONTRACTORS ASS'N LABORERS UNION #41 AFL-CIO In addition a "handbill" was distributed.4 The handbill reads as follows: NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The sole purpose of patrolling this job site is to alert the public that the work being performed is not being done by qualified BUILDING TRADES CRAFTS- force or require the Association and its members , including George DeJong, to recognize and bargain with Respondent "as the representative of the Association's employees within the certified unit [set forth above], notwithstanding the fact that Local 12 has been, and is, certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of such employees" and that by the picketing Respondent violated Section 8(b) (4) (C) of the Act, 8 During the winter months work was suspended, in the main , because of inclement weather. 4 George DeJong testified that he did not observe the picket distributing the handbills but that upon request the picket gave him (DeJong) copies which he (DeJong) dis- tributed to his own employees and to subcontractors and that the plumbing contractor distributed the handbill among his employees General Counsel witnesses Joseph Van Keppel and Gilbert Lyzenga testified they were at the construction site on several occa- sions but that they never observed the picket passing out handbills. General Counsel witness Virgil Wyncoop (president of Respondent) testified that he saw the picket dis- tribute 15 or 20 handbills and testified further in such a manner as to leave an inference that the picket distributed several hundred of these handbills. INT'L HOD CARRIERS , ETC., LOCAL NO. 41 , AFL-CIO 87 MEN. It is to inform the public that the prevailing rate of pay and conditions are not being met on this job. THIS NOTICE IS ADDRESSED ONLY TO THE PUBLIC IT IS NOT ADDRESSED TO ANY EMPLOYER OR TO ANY EMPLOYEES. There is no intent or attempt to induce or encourage any employees of any employer to engage in a refusal to work, transport or otherwise handle or work on any goods, materials, etc. No one is requested to cease performing any services. No one is requested to cease doing business with any person . There is no intent to have any particular work assigned to anyone , nor is there an intent to seek recognition or to start bargaining. We believe that the people residing in this area should be familiar with what is going on and that is the sole purpose of the patrolling. LOCAL 41 INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, AFL-CIO. Joseph Van Keppel testified that on March 18, 1959, when a plumber and helper from Hillbrich & Connor ( a plumbing contractor ) arrived at the construction site the picket got out of his car and put on his sign and talked to the plumber. Van Keppel did not overhear the conversation . It is not clear from Van Keppel's testimony (which is the only evidence concerning this matter ) what happened next. Apparently the picket returned to his post, the plumbers left the jobsite, and then returned in about 45 minutes and picked up their tools and again left the jobsite. Van Keppel testified that on March 19, when a delivery truck parked near the rear of the construction site the picket went from the front of the site to the rear and made notes on a pad of paper (apparently copied the name from the side of the truck ). The truckdriver offered to supply to the picket his (the truckdriver's) name but the picket said that was not necessary he (the picket ) "could find that out any- way." Thereafter the truckdriver unloaded his truck at the construction site. On March 23 , 1959, the same plumbers who had appeared at the jobsite on March 18, returned . Although the picket was there , the plumbers went to work. Following the lunch hour a car drove up to the jobsite and one of the occupants (the occupants were not from Respondent Union ) talked to the plumber. The record does not reveal what was said. Immediately thereafter the plumbers left the jobsite. On March 25, 1959, the concrete floor slab contractor 's employees arrived to perform work . These employees , some of whom were members of Respondent Union, asked Respondent 's president, who was parked in the shopping center, what they should do about going through the picket line and were told that it was their prerogative to go through . Upon further inquiry these employees were told that they would not be fined or punished or penalized in any respect if they crossed the picket line . Later that morning one of the officials of the concrete floor slab con- tractor asked Respondent's president "What's going to happen if my men go through that picket line?" and was told "Absolutely nothing. That's their prerogative. If they want to go through that picket line, they can go." Immediately after this con- versation the official from the concrete floor slab contractor told DeJong "they would not be able to make the deliveries " and then the employees of this contractor left the jobsite. The evidence with regard to picketing and to the incidents heretofore outlined is the only reliable evidence in this record tending to establish "inducement or en- couragement" as those terms are used in Section 8(b) (4) of the Act. At the hearing in this matter it was stipulated that "at no time did Local 41 [Respondent herein] make a written or oral request or demand to be recognized or to be bargained with as the representative of the employees of George DeJong, the Calumet Contractors' Association , or any of the members of said association for the bargaining unit covered by the complaint in this case or for any other bargaining unit." George Delong and Respondent Union's president testified to a similar effect-that no demands for recognition, to start bargaining , to sign a collective-bargaining agreement , or to employ members of Respondent Union were made by Respondent Union. CONCLUSIONS Assuming, arguendo, that the conduct outlined above constitutes inducement or encouragement within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act, the question for determination herein is whether the object of such conduct was "forcing or requiring the Calumet Contractors Association and its members, including George DeJong 88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to recognize or bargain with Respondent Union.. . If so, a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(C) of the Act has been established; otherwise, it has not been proved.5 It is apparent that Respondent's conduct had as an object the securing of rates of pay and other conditions of employment-matters normally sought through col- lective bargaining. However, the mere fact that such matters are normally obtained as a result of collective bargaining does not mean that this is the only avenue avail- able for such purposes and the section of the Act under consideration does not proscribe conduct aimed at securing rates of pay or other conditions of employment. It proscribes forcing or requiring an employer to enter into bargaining relations with or dealings with a particular union despite the fact that another labor organiza- tion is the certified representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. In the instant matter Respondent was not seeking recognition and was not attempting to usurp some or all of the functions of Local 12 (the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative). From the evidence adduced it could be argued that Respondent was attempting to aid rather than infringe upon Local 12's rights. Assuming, however, that the normal, foreseeable result of picketing is to induce a willingness or readiness on the part of an employer to grant recognition such normal, foreseeable consequence is a rebuttable presumption (Radio Broadcast Technicians, etc. (WKRG-TV), 123 NLRB 507) and the evidence adduced herein establishes that the presumption has been rebutted. Throughout the course of this matter, including the prior rep- resentation case, Respondent disclaimed any interest in representing the employees involved and informed the parties, the public, the employees involved, and agencies of the United States Government that it was not seeking recognition or bargaining rights. The only evidence indicative of a desire to meet with and deal with the employer or employers involved herein is the fact of picketing. However, the appeal of the picket sign and the accompanying handbill clearly disclaim any "intent to seek recognition or to start bargaining.' In view of the foregoing, it is believed that the complaint, in its entirety, should be dismissed. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 6The sole issue litigated was whether Respondent violated Section 8(b) (4) (C) and there is no issue before the Trial Examiner as to whether the aforementioned conduct was violative of any other section of the Act. Borden-Sancken Company and Milk and Ice Cream Drivers and Dairy Employees, Local Union No . 23, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Cases Was. 10-CA-4449, 10-CA-4449-2, and 10-CA- 4477. February 10, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On October 17, 1960, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs were filed by the Respondent and the General Counsel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The 130 NLRB No. 16.