Krasen Plumbing & Heating, Inc.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Minneapolis Building and Construction Trades Coun- cil, AFL-CIO, and Local No. 34, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO and Krasen Plumbing and Heating, Inc. Cases 18-CP- 170-1 and 18-CP-170-2 April 19, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND WALTHER On March 17, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Platonia P. Kirkwood issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Unions filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt her recommended Order.3 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondents, Minneapolis Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL- CIO, and Local No. 34, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO, and their respective officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the actions set forth in the said recommended Order. I The Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule 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 herein and find no such basis for reversing her findings. 2 Chairman Fanning, in view of the jobsite incident involving Respon- dent's effort to have employee Clemmer organize in its behalf fellow employees covered by contract with another union - as credited by the Administrative Law Judge - finds it unnecessary to reach her additional finding that the picketing activity absent that incident was violative of Sec. 8(bX7XA) and (C). 3 As the evidence in this case establishes an intent to picket this Employer at other locations, we adopt the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge without relying on fn. 15 of her Decision. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PLATONIA P. KIRKWOOD, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing in these consolidated cases was held before me at Minneapolis, Minnesota, on October 28, 1976. The complaint is based upon a charge and two amended charges filed by Krasen Plumbing and Heating, Inc. (hereinafter Krasen), on September 14, 22, and 23, 1976,' respectively, against the above-named Respondents. The complaint issued together with an order consolidating the cases on September 30. It alleges that the Respondents engaged in picketing activity violative of Section 8(bX7)(A) and (C) of the Act. Respondents' answer to the complaint denies the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. On the entire record in this case, from my observation of the witnesses, and upon due consideration of the able briefs duly submitted by the Charging Party, the General Counsel, and the Respondents, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer, Krasen, is a Minnesota corporation maintaining its office and principal place of business in Hutchinson, Minnesota, where it is engaged as a plumbing and heating contractor in the building and construction industry. In the course and conduct of its business operations, Krasen annually purchases from out-of-state sources goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which goods are shipped to and received by Krasen at facilities and construction projects within the State of Minnesota. Respondents admit, and I find, that the Employer, Krasen, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED It is admitted and I find that Respondent Minneapolis Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO (hereafter Respondent Council), and Respondent Local No. 34, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO (hereafter Respondent Local 34), are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. It is further admitted and I find that United Construc- tion Workers Local No. 84, affiliated with Christian Labor Association (hereinafter CLA), is, and has been at all times I All dates hereafter set forth are for 1976 unless otherwise stated. 229 NLRB No. 31 98 MINNEAPOLIS BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.2 Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The alleged violation of Section 8(b)7XA) and (C) of the Act turns on whether Respondents' picketing of Krasen between August 5 and October 11, in the circumstances described below, had a recognition or organizational objective within the meaning of the first paragraph of Section 8(b)(7) of the Act. B. The Relevant Facts I. Background information Krasen has had a collective-bargaining relationship with CLA covering its employees which goes back for many years. In June or July 1974, Respondents mounted an organizational campaign among those employees with a view to obtaining representative status.3 That campaign was unsuccessful and, on August i, 1974, Krasen and CLA executed a 2-year bargaining agreement bearing an expiration date of July 31, 1976. A copy of this agreement was obtained by the Respondents and was admittedly in their possession at all times here material. In May 1976, pursuant to contracts awarded by an agency of the State of Minnesota, construction was begun on the Howard Lake Elementary School located in Howard Lake, Minnesota. Some of the work that was required to be performed involved new construction and some involved remodeling or repair of an existing school building. A prime contract for the mechanical work involving installation and/or repair of air-conditioning and heating plants was awarded to Krasen. A contract for most of the remaining construction work was awarded to Adolf and Petersen, Inc., as a general contractor. The latter firm engaged a number of subcontractors to do project work and each of them had a bargaining contract with an affiliate of the Respondent Minneapolis Building Trades Council (hereinafter Respondent Council). Krasen had about 10 employees working on the Howard Lake project when the events hereafter related took place. Those employees were performing sheet metal and other work tasks of the kind which members of Respondent Local 34 and/or members of other constituent unions of Respondent Council were also qualified to perform. Their hourly pay rates, prior benefits, and other working conditions were set by the contracts negotiated by CLA and Krasen. Because the hourly rates of pay, as set out in the CLA contract which the Respondents had in their possession, were substantially less than the rates paid by other employers on the project, each of whom, as noted, 2 Respondents' admission to the status of the CLA as a labor organization is confined solely to this case. 3 Evidence of the here recited actions by Respondents in 1974 was admitted, under well-established precedents, solely as "background" evidence. 4 The disparity between Krasen's hourly rates and those of the other union contractors is apparent from a comparison of the Krasen contract which Respondents had in their possession to the Respondents' contracts. The Krasen contract also shows additional payments by Krasen of fringe had a bargaining contract with a union affiliated with Respondent Council,4 and also because the fringe benefits did not appear to be equivalent, Respondent Council asked for, and obtained from its attorney, advice as to how to proceed to protest Krasen's lower rates. 2. The events forming the immediate backdrop of the complaint Respondents' Letters to Krasen During the months of June and July 1976, a number of unions affiliated with Respondent Building Trades Council sent Respondent a letter stating in each case substantially as follows: 5 Gentlemen: The undersigned Union has information that as a contractor, you are accepting jobs at jobsites located within the jursidiction and territorial area in which our members perform work; and that you employ persons who perform various types of work at such jobsites which fall within the job classifications represented by this Union. We are further informed that you are paying to your employees performing such work, less than the area standards of wages, fringes and other monetary and economic benefits. Over a period of many years of bargaining for the workers of our craft, this Union has built up certain area standards of wages, fringes and other monetary and economic benefits. We are naturally anxious to maintain these standards for the workers of this area. We are enclosing herewith a list of job classifications, wages, fringes and other monetary and economic benefits constituting the standards in this area for the types of work performed by employees represented by this labor organization. We hereby respectfully request that you compare the actual wages, fringes and monetary and economic benefits that are being paid by you to your employees, on the one hand, to those appearing in the enclosed list, on the other hand. After you have made such comparison, will you kindly confirm to us as to the amounts you are paying to your employees as wage rates, fringes and other economic and monetary benefits. We hereby also request a meeting with you to discuss this matter and suggest that you kindly call us for the purpose of arranging such a meeting. If we do not hear from you within the next few days, we shall assume that the information we have received benefits for health insurance (at no cost to employees), vacations, and pensions. The contract does not show, however. the precise character of the coverage afforded by Krasen's health and pension plans, or its cost to Krasen. The Respondents' union contracts require the signatory employers to provide health and pension coverage and vacation and training fund benefits under jointly administered industrywide plans by contributing specified amounts for each employee on a per-hour basis. I The letter followed a form prepared by Respondents' attorney. 99 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as to your paying below the area standards is not disputed by you. This letter is not a request for recognition as bargaining representative, nor is it to be construed as a request that you sign and contract with us. Our sole interest is to maintain minimum standards of wages and other monetary and economic benefits for the workers of this area engaged in the types of work performed by workers within the jurisdiction represent- ed by this labor organization. We should appreciate hearing from you upon receipt of this letter. Enclosed with each letter was a listing of various items described as composing, as a whole, the "area" rate paid by employers whose employees were represented by the particular union signatory to the letter.6 The earliest of the letters sent to Krasen by the union affiliates of the council was dated on June 7 and the latest, July 27. It is undisputed that Krasen never responded to any of these letters. 3. The contacts between agents of Respondents and employees of Krasen a. Respondents' visit to the jobsite on July 27 On July 27, a number of business representatives of unions affiliated with Respondent Council went on the Howard Lake School jobsite to check the cards of building tradesmen covered by bargaining contracts held by the respective Council-affiliated unions. Their objective in making the card check was to see that the various collective-bargaining agreements were enforced; to see whether employees working for contractors holding AFL- CIO contracts were members of the unions involved; and to determine whether the particular employees involved were receiving the proper wage rates as negotiated by the Respondent Council. Among the union business represen- tatives who visited the jobsite for that purpose were Leonard C. Bienias, a field representative of the Respon- dent Council, and William Johanneck, a business agent of the Respondent Local 34. During their inspection or checking tour Bienias and Johanneck visited the school building where the remodeling work was being done. They heard noises which indicated to them that sheet metal work was being performed. They went to the location for checking purposes and spoke to three men there engaged at work, all of whom were employees of Krasen. The three men were Elmer R. Schlueter, Donald J. Clemmer, and Mark D. Jensen. Bienias spoke to Schlueter and Johanneck spoke with Clemmer and Jensen. The testimony of all involved with respect to each of these various conversa- tions is reported below and, as indicated, is partially in conflict.T s This listing included basic rate of pay per hour, for each employee and his travel allowances, and the amount per employee which the employer was required to pay into group pension, health and welfare, apprentice training, and industry promotion funds. b. The conversation between Bienias and Schlueter The testimony of Schlueter and Bienias concerning their conversation is mutually consistent. It shows, in essence, that Bienias came to Schlueter and asked him for his union card. Schlueter produced his CLA card. Then, recalling that he had met Schlueter during the Respondents' efforts to organize Krasen's employees in 1974, Bienias referred to that period of time and said, in effect, that because of the Respondents' organizational efforts at that time, Krasen's employees "got almost as much increase in wages through our own union as if they would have signed our shop up themselves." c. The conversation between Jensen, Bienias, and Johanneck The testimony of Jensen, Bienias, and Johanneck concerning their conversation is also mutually consistent. It shows, in essence, that both Bienias and Johanneck approached Jensen. Bienias asked him for his union card. Jensen, a college student who was employed by Krasen on a temporary basis as an apprentice sheet metal worker, said he had no union card. Bienias then asked Jensen what he was getting in wages. Jensen responded that he was getting $2.50 per hour. Bienias then told him, inter alia, that "in our union, our laborers make $8 an hour" and "you should be embarrassed by what you are making." Jensen respond- ed that he was going to Duluth University, that he "really did not need the money other than spending money" and that he was a friend of the Krasen family. d. The conversation between Clemmer and Johanneck With respect to the conversation between Clemmer and Johanneck, the record shows that there is a serious and irreconcilable conflict between the testimony of General Counsel's witnesses (Clemmer and Jensen) concerning the matter, on one hand, and those of Respondents' witnesses (Bienias and Johanneck), on the other. Clemmer's account on direct is as follows: Q. What if anything unusual occurred on July 27, 1976? A. Well, we were on the job on the second floor and- Q. Who's [sic] with you? A. Buddy and Mark and probably about six or seven of us from Krasen were working, approximately, in the area on the second floor in the existing building. Q. Referring to Buddy. Are you referring to- A. Mr. Schleuter. Q. And Mark is- A. Jensen. Q. Mark Jensen? A. Uh-huh. Q. Okay. You were working on the second floor? I The order in which the various conversations took place is not clear from the evidence, but it does not seem to me to be too important to decide in which order they occurred. 100 MINNEAPOLIS BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL A. In the second floor of the existing building, remodelling. Q. What were you doing on the second floor? A. Installing duct work for the air conditioning and heating. Q. What happened? A. Well, two business agents came up. Q. Do you know who these business agents were? A. Yes. Q. Who were they? A. Tiny Johanneck and this gentleman right here (indicating). JUDGE KIRKWOOD: Which one are you pointing to- You are pointing to the one sitting with Respondent's counsel? THE WITNESS: Yes, with the brown suit and glasses. JUDGE KIRKWOOD: Give us your name. MR. BIENIAS: Leonard Bienias. JUDGE KIRKWOOD: Thank you. MR. PROWELL: All right. They came up and what happened? A. Well, they started talking to us. I met with Tiny Johanneck. I knew him. Q. You knew Tiny Johanneck? A. Yes. And we met and then Tiny introduced me to this gentleman. Q. Referring to "this gentleman" you mean Mr. Bienias? A. Mr. Bienias, yes. We had a conversation and- Q. What did Tiny say? A. He asked me what I was doing there and I told him well you got to make a living or something to that effect. That was what I was doing there. And then he said-well, we talked a little bit and then he asked me if-he says "Why don't you get with these other guys and organize them so that we can get them into our local?" And I told him that it wouldn't do any good because I was blackballed with the International Sheet Metal Local to do this. And he says, "Well, if you organize, help organize the rest of the guys, you can come in automatically under a newly organized shop." And I told him at that time to stick it up his ass. You asked me what I said, right? Q. Right. A. And the reason I did that- JUDGE KIRKWOOD: Just answer the question. Q. Just tell me what happened after that? A. Then he told me that he would have Tommy Callahan talk to me, and I told him- Q. Who is Tommy Callahan? A. A business agent with Local No. 34. Q. Okay. A. And I told him as far as I was concerned he could keep him off the job. I didn't want to see him, and that was the end of it. Jensen. in his testimony, however, reported that it was Johanneck who approached Clemmer and initiated the conversation. Jensen also testified that he had seen the two men earlier while he was on S * Q. Now you indicated that these two gentlemen approached you. I believe you indicated one gentle- man's name was Tiny and the other gentleman's name was Leonard Bienias? A. Right. Q. Were both those gentlemen standing together when Tiny was talking to you and you were relaying the substance of your conversation? A. No. Q. Where was Leonard Bienias standing? A. He was talking to two other employees when we got up there. And Tiny and I, we were I'd say about 15 feet away talking. Q. So just the two of you were talking when you were talking about organizing the employees. Is that right? A. No, my apprentice, Mark Jensen, was standing there, too. Q. So there were the three of you that were standing there? A. Right. Q. Mr. Clemmer, have you had previous contact or relationship with a gentleman by the name of Tiny? A. Yes, we used to work together in-probably '65 and '66 when I was a member of Local 34 in Minneapolis. Q. Was he ever an employee of yours? A. No. On cross-examination, Clemmer stated that he "came up to the table" where Bienias and Johanneck were apparently standing when Clemmer first saw them but that he "could not remember" either whether Johanneck's back was towards him or whether he or Johanneck spoke first. In further testimony on cross-examination, Clemmer admitted that he had been a member of the Respondent Sheet Metal Workers between 1953 and 1967; that he had obtained a "withdrawal" card from the Union to go into business and had had some difficulties with the Union over the question of whether or not he was observing the union contract. The Union then revoked his withdrawal card. Thereafter, Clemmer tried to "get back in the Union" but was "turned down" even after he appealed to the Respondent Local's International. Jensen's testimonial report of the above conversation corroborated Clemmer's version in most material details.8 The account given by Bienias and Johanneck, testifying in rebuttal, was quite different. Bienias, who testified first, represented that he and Johanneck came to the second floor of the building together; that they remained together thereafter. In response to leading questions put to him by Respondents' counsel, Bienias averred that Clemmer approached Johan- neck, that the latter's back was turned when he (Bienias) saw Clemmer come up, tap Johanneck on the back and start conversing with him; and that Jensen was not present during their conversation. Asked to describe what he had the first floor and that they had questioned him at that time in the manner earlier reported. 101 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD overheard the two men say, Bienias reported that, after some preliminary small talk, Clemmer "said to Tiny [Johanneck] about he was kicked out of the Local Union and that he would be getting back at Local 34." Johanneck affirmed the details of Bienias' testimonial representations concerning the details of how he and Bienias met Clemmer, and how the conversation between them began. He reported that Clemmer first greeted him with a question as to what he was doing there. To that question Johanneck replied that he was making a "routine Building Trades card check." After "a little conversation," Clemmer asked, "How is Sheet Metal No. 34 doing?" Johanneck's response included a statement that the union "had a problem as far as unemployment was concerned." To this, Clemmer said "that didn't bother him too much"; and that because of "Sheet Metal's cancellation of his withdrawal card he had no love for the Union at all ... that in fact they had shafted him." Johanneck expressed a lack of knowledge concerning Clemmer's difficulties with the Union and, according to Johanneck, Clemmer indicat- ed an interest in "coming back" into the Union, whereupon Johanneck told him that he could talk to Tom Callahan, the business manager, because he (Johanneck) had "noth- ing to do with the organizational aspect." He quotes Clemmer as saying then, "hell, he would shove it up my ass just like Les Williams did." 9 Johanneck also reported that neither Schlueter nor Jensen were near enough to overhear the conversation, and that Bienias was there during the entire time. He did not, however, report, as did Bienias, that Clemmer's statements to him included a threat that "he would be getting back at Local 34." e. Resolution of the credibility issue concerning Johanneck's conversation with Clemmer and Jensen on July 27 Based in part on my impressions of the witnesses while they were giving their testimony and, in part, upon other considerations explained below, I have concluded that Clemmer's and Jensen's version of what Johanneck said to Clemmer on July 27 should be credited over that of Bienias and Johanneck. The account given by Clemmer and Jensen about the content of Johanneck's statements to them is mutually corroborative and not implausible. It is lent credence, in my view, by the uncontestable fact that the Respondents' agents knew that Krasen's employees were members of CLA and therefore had no reason either to ask any such employees for cards in performing their card inspection duties for their own unions or to extol their own unions' 9 Williams was a former business representative. io In making the judgment about the credible evidence, I have taken into account the fact that there was some inconsistency between the testimony of Clemmer and Jensen about such details as to how the meeting between them and Johanneck first began and who spoke first. The details are not significant ones, however, and some confusion concerning them by the participants is understandable, given the 3 months' lapse of time between the date of the reported incident and the hearing. I have also considered the fact that Clemmer had been a member of superior benefits in so doing. Furthermore, neither Johan- neck nor Bienias was an impressive witness; their testimo- ny on this, and on other matters on which they reported, did not have the ring of truth; and I detected in each of them a tendency to color their reports to suit their partisan interests in obtaining a favorable outcome in this case. I am therefore unwilling to accept as true any representations made by them about events placed in issue in this case where they are uncorroborated by independent evidence of an unquestionably reliable nature. On the basis of the above considerations, and the record as a whole, I find, in accord with the testimony given by Clemmer and Jensen that, in visiting the location on the jobsite where Clemmer, Jensen, and other of Krasen's employees were working, Johanneck asked Clemmer in Jensen's presence, to organize Krasen's employees and get them in his (Johanneck's) union, and that Bienias was not present when Johanneck made that request l0 4. Respondents' decision to picket the jobsite and the events which followed Between July 27 and August 5, 1976, the business agent of the unions affiliated with Respondent Council (includ- ing Respondent Local 34) held a meeting at which the question of picketing or "bannering" Krasen was dis- cussed. Bienias reported, inter alia, that on his visit to the jobsite on July 27 he had learned that Krasen was paying Jensen $2.50 an hour; that the lowest rate described by the 1974-76 contract between CLA and Krasen was $2.75; and that all other of the rates set out in that contract were lower than those provided for sheet metal workers covered by Respondents' contracts. Bienias, and/or other union representatives at the meeting, also "brought out" that no response had been received from Krasen to the various union letter requests previously sent him for information on his wage rates as they compared to those of the unions signing the requests. A motion was thereafter made and passed that the unions "start to banner Krasen." The bannering or picketing commenced on August 5, 1976, by which date Krasen's employees were working under conditions established in a new contract negotiated for a 2-year period commencing August 1, 1976. A single individual was posted at the jobsite carrying a sign which read as follows: Respondent Local 34 at one time and had been ousted because, as he admitted, he had "difficulties" with that union when, in going into business for himself, the Union questioned whether or not he was "observing the union contract." But I do not regard that fact-one forthrightly admitted by Clemmer-as a warrant for discrediting his here relevant testimony, especially since: (a) it was corroborated by Jensen; (b) both he and Jensen impressed me as honest witnesses; and (c) Clemmer's "difficulties" with Local 34 had occurred more than 7 years before. 102 MINNEAPOLIS BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC MECHANICAL WORK BEING PERFORMED ON THIS JOB IS AT SUBSTANDARD WAGES AND BENEFITS BY KRASEN PLUMBING AND HEATING MINNEAPOLIS BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL AFL-CIO Immediately after the picket appeared, all employees at the project other than those employed by Krasen walked off the job. Although some of those employees apparently returned to work for a time thereafter, work was "slowed down" until September 9. On the latter date, all employees of the AFL-CIO union contractors again stopped working until enjoined by a temporary restraining order issued pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act by the U.S. District Court of Minnesota, Fourth Division. The charge initiating this proceeding was filed on September 14, 1976.11 C. Analysis of the Issues and Conclusions Where an employer who, like Krasen, has a collective- bargaining contract with a labor organization and no question concerning representation can appropriately be raised under the provisions of Section 9(c) of the Act, the provisions of Section 8(b)(7) of the Act protect that employer and his employees from the pressures flowing out of picketing activity engaged in by any labor organization other than that with which it bargains, where an object of picketing is organizational or recognitional in nature. However, the Board decisions have interpreted the general statutory proscription against recognitional or organiza- tional picketing contained in Section 8(b)(7) as having one significant qualification. As stated in the recent decision in the Alpha Beta Acme Market case,12 "It is now well established that in the absence of evidence disclosing a recognitional object a union may picket where the labor costs of the picketed employer are below those established in the area. This has become known as the area standards doctrine, and picketing which conforms to its limitations is lawful." Explaining the rationale of that doctrine and the guidelines for applying it, the above-cited Board decision refers to a number of earlier decisions and concludes, in relevant part, as follows: A labor union normally seeks to organize the unorganized and to negotiate collective-bargaining contracts with employers; but it also has a legitimate interest apart from organization or recognition that employers meet prevailing pay scales and employee benefits, for otherwise employers paying less than the "Krasen filed an earlier charge on August 6. 1976, alleging the picketing was violative of Sec. 8(bX4XiiXB) of the Act. Krasen. with the approval of the Regional Director for Region 18, withdrew that charge on August 18, 1976, "without prejudice." prevailing wage scale would ultimately undermine the area standards .... Hence, if a union pickets and says to an employer, "We only want you to pay the prevailing wage scale, but don't want to bargain with you or organize your employees," and there is no independent evidence to controvert this statement of objective the Board cannot find that the picketing has organization recognition or bargaining objectives. s * * The question of objectives in every case is one of fact and not of assumptions or presumptions. . . . [Empha- sis supplied.] General Counsel claims, in the instant case, that the Respondents' picketing of Krasen, which commenced on August 5, had, as one of its aims at least, a proscribed recognitional or organizational objective; whereas Respon- dent claims that the sole objective of the picketing was to protest the performance of construction work by Krasen and its employees under conditions that did not measure up to those prevailing in the area where the picketed project was located. Reviewing all the facts I conclude that, notwithstanding the presence of certain informational features of the Respondents' picketing activity, the General Counsel's case should be sustained. I reach that result primarily because there is independent credible evidence which controverts Respondents' disclaimer of organization, recognition, or bargaining objectives. That evidence shows, as noted, that the Respondents' agents contacted Krasen's employees on July 27, some 8 days before the picketing commenced in the furtherance of organizational objectives and that, indeed, one of those agents asked some employees to try to get fellow employees to join Respondent Local 34. Since, the Board principles cited, supra, indicate that the "area standards" doctrine does not remove picketing for an announced area standard objective from the reach of Section 8(b)(7) where there is independent evidence of an organization, recognition, or bargaining objective, it follows, and I conclude, that the Respondents' picketing activity, which commenced on August 5, 1976, was violative of Section 8(b)(7XA) and (C) of the Act. I need not, however, rest that conclusion solely on the I evidence describing Respondents' contacts with Krasen employees on July 27. The Board cases cited, supra, make it plain that the "area standards" doctrine: (I) is limited to situations where the economic costs of the picketed employer for the employees he employs are less than those borne by employers having contracts with the picketing unions; and (2) does not protect picketing which seeks to have the target employer provide for his employees wage rates and fringe benefits 12 Sales Delivery Drivers. Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 296 of Santa Clara and San Benito Counties, California, et al. (Alpha Beta Acme Markets, Inc.), 205 NLRB 462, 468 (1973). 103 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD equivalent to those provided by the employers under contracts with the picketing unions.13 These cases also make it plain that picketing for the latter objective-i.e., the payment by the target employer to his employees of employee benefits and wage rates equivalent to those paid by the employers having contracts with the picketing unions-falls within the proscriptions of Section 8(b)(7) of the Act; and that the existence of such proscribed objective will be found, despite the picketing union's disclaimer thereof and its use of "area standards" signs, where the picketing union has failed, before embarking on the picketing activity, to make as thorough an investigation as the circumstances will permit to determine the target employer's economic costs. Reviewing the record before me in light of the above cases, I am constrained to find that the Respondents' picketing activity was in fact undertaken to protest Krasen's failure to provide its employees with wage and fringe benefits equivalent to those paid by the employers having contracts with the Respondents and that it therefore did not fall within the purview of the Board's concepts of permissible "area of standards" picketing. I base that finding on the totality of the following relevant considera- tions: 1. The record establishes that Respondents' decision to picket Krasen was reached wholly on the basis of the Respondents' comparison between the wage rates and benefits provided for Krasen's employees by Krasen's 1974-76 contract with the CLA and those negotiated by the Respondents for employees they represented. 2. The cost to Krasen of such employee benefits as fully paid health insurance and pension fund contributions the contract which the CLA provides is not apparent from the face of Krasen's 1974-76 contract with the CLA. 3. Although the decision to picket Krasen was made by the Respondents before the July 31, 1976, expiration date of the Krasen-CLA 1974-76 contract, the picketing was not instituted until some 5 days after the expiration date of the 1974-76 Krasen-CLA contract. And, so far as the record shows, Respondents made no inquiry of any kind with respect to what was provided by way of wages and fringe benefits in the Krasen-CLA contract which became effective on August 1, 1976, or the costs of such wages and fringe benefits to Krasen. 4. Finally, Respondents' brief contains an admission concerning the real object of the picketing in describing it as an "attempt to induce Krasen to pay wages and economic benefits equal or comparable to those provided by the collective bargaining agreements of the local unions affiliated with the Council, applicable in the Howard Lake, Minnesota area with respect to the types of work performed by Krasen's employees, namely, sheet metal, pipe covering, plumbing, and pipefitting work." To conclude, I find in the totality of all of the above, the requisite support for the complaint's allegations that the Respondents' picketing activity, on and after August 5, was 13 In addition to the case cited supra, fn. 12, see also Automotive Employees, Laundry Drivers d Helpers, Local No. 88, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (West Coast Cycle Supply Co.), 208 NLRB 679 (1974), and other cases there cited. z4 The undisputed fact that the picketing caused the stoppage of project work until enjoined precludes any reliance by Respondent on theproviso to Sec. 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act as a defense to the complaint. violative of both Section 8(bX7XA) and (C) of the Act, even absent the evidence describing the incident occurring at thejobsite on July 27.4 IV. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents engaged in picketing Krasen at the Howard Lake, Minnesota, school project site, in violation of Section 8(b)7)(A) and (C) of the Act, I shall recommend that they cease and desist from such activities and that they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall further recommend that the cease-and-desist and notice-posting requirements of the Order be extended to protect the collective-bargaining relationship between Krasen and the CLA against Respondents' engagement in picketing of Krasen in violation of Section 8(bX7XA) and (C) of the Act at any location within the Respondents' territorial jurisdic- tion. In making this further recommendation, I have given due consideration to the Board's decision in Bartenders, Hotel, Restaurant and Cafeteria Employees Union Local 36, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartend- ers International Union, AFL-CIO (Action One, Inc.), 222 NLRB 821 (1976), and to the contentions of the parties respecting its applicability to this case. In agreement with the General Counsel's position, and contrary to that of the Respondents, I believe that considerations not present in the Action One case warrant inferring that the Respondents are likely to engage in further picketing of Krasen at other locations for the same objective as those they sought to serve in picketing Krasen at the Howard Lake School project, and hence justify the issuance of the broader order here. Those considerations are as follows: 1. Respondents' representational and recognitional interests which Respondents here pursued through the picketing of Krasen involve employees who regularly work in the construction industry and who are not therefore permanently assigned to work at the single location or project at which the picketing occurred. As Respondents are aware, all such employees of Krasen are covered by a single collective-bargaining contract between Krasen and the CLA.' 5 2. The letter sent by the Respondents to Krasen shortly before the picketing commenced, asserted that "as a contractor [Krasen was] accepting jobs at jobsites located within the jurisdiction and territorial area in which our members perform work" and "that [it was] paying [its] employees performing such work, less than the area standards of wages, fringes and other monetary and economic benefits." Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I hereby issue the following recommended: 15 I am unaware of any cases involving 8(bX7XA) and (C) violations predicated on picketing of employers engaged in the construction industry in which the Board has restricted the injunctive provisions of its order to the single project site at which the unlawful picketing was found to have occurred. 104 MINNEAPOLIS BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL ORDER 16 Respondents Minneapolis Building and Construction Trades Council AFL-CIO, and Local No. 34, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO, their re- spective officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Picketing, causing to be picketed, or threatening to picket Krasen Plumbing and Heating, Inc., at any location within Respondents' territorial jurisdiction, where an object thereof is to force or require Krasen to recognize or bargain with Respondents as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees when Krasen has lawfully recognized CLA or any other labor organization other than Respondents, and a question concerning representation of said employees may not be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act, unless Respondents are then currently certified to select the representatives of the employees of Krasen. (b) Picketing, causing to be picketed, or threatening to picket Krasen at any location within Respondents' territo- rial jurisdiction where an object thereof is to force or require the employees of Krasen to accept or select Respondents as their collective-bargaining representative, unless such picketing is conducted at a time when a question concerning representation may appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of this Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Post at the respective business offices and the meeting halls of each Respondent copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 1'7 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 18, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of each Respondent, shall be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to 16 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 the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. IT In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice leading "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." insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign, as aforesaid, and mail to the Regional Director for Region 18 sufficient copies of the notice for posting, Krasen willing, at all places where notices to Krasen's employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT picket, cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket Krasen Plumbing and Heating, Inc., at any location within our territorial jurisdiction, where an object thereof is to force or require Krasen to recognize or bargain with us as the collective-bargain- ing representative of its employees when Krasen has lawfully recognized United Construction Workers Local No. 84, affiliated with Christian Labor Associa- tion, or any other labor organization, and a question concerning representation of the said employees may not be raised under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act unless we are then currently certified as the representative of Krasen's employees. WE WILL NOT picket, cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket Krasen at any location without our territorial jurisdiction where an object thereof is to force or require the employees of Krasen to accept or select us as their collective-bargaining representative, unless such picketing is conducted at a time when a question concerning representation may appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act. MINNEAPOLos BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO LOCAL NO. 34, SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO 105