Over-The-Road, City Transfer, Cold Storage, Grocery And Market Drivers And Helpers, Inside Employees, Local Union No. 544

164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Over-the-Road, City Transfer, Cold Storage, Gro- cery and Market Drivers and Helpers, Inside Employees, Local Union No. 544, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Better Home Deliveries , Inc. Case 18-CP- 257 20 February 1985 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS On 12 March 1984 Administrative Law Judge James M. Fitzpatrick issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed an answering brief. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, I and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order. z ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent , Over-the- Road, City Transfer, Cold Storage , Grocery and Market ' Drivers and Helpers, Inside Employees, Local Union No. 544, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, Minneapolis, Minne- sota, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order. ' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings In the fifth paragraph of sec 1II,13 of his decision, the judge incorrect- ly cited the Board's decision in Teamsters Local 456 (Construction City Corp) The correct citation is 233 NLRB 418, 420 (1977) 2 On 13 June 1984 the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a plurality decision affirming the District Court for the District of Minnesota's denial of the Board's request for a preliminary in- junction against the Respondent's picketing activities, finding no reasona- ble cause to believe the Respondent's conduct violated Sec 8(b)(7)(C) of the 'Act The court, however, based its decision on a different record than this decision, and did not have the benefit of the judge's credibility findings that have been made herein DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES M FITZPATRICK, Administrative Law Judge. In this case the Union picketed a nonunion employer for more than 30 days without seeking a representation elec- 274 NLRB No. 34 tion under Board auspices Although the Union dis- claimed any purpose to organize the Employer's employ- ees or to obtain recognition as their representative, I find its purpose necessarily required sufficient recognition from the Employer to establish recognitional and organi- zational objects which render the extended picketing un- lawful. Procedurally this case arises from unfair labor practice charges filedApril 21, 1983,1 by Better Home Deliveries, Inc. (BHD or the Charging Party), that Over-the-Road, City Transfer, Cold Storage, Grocery and Market Driv- ers and Helpers, Inside Employees, Local Union No. 544, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica (Respondent or Local 544), had violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) Based on these charges the General Counsel of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued a com- plaint on behalf of the Board on May 6, 1983, alleging that Local 544 had engaged in unfair labor practices pro- scribed by that Section of the Act. Local 544 answered the complaint, denying the unfair labor practices. The general issue posed is whether Local 544, which picketed BHD for more than 30 days without filing a representa- tion petition with the Board, did so with an organization- al or a representational object. The case was heard before me at Minneapolis, Minnesota, on June 22, 1983. Based on the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Re- spondent, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED Dayton-Hudson Corporation is a large retail concern operating retail stores in various States and communities including Minneapolis, Minnesota. Target, Inc (Target), a division of Dayton-Hudson Corporation, operates retail discount department stores in various States of the United States, including the area of St Paul and Minne- apolis, Minnesota In conjunction with its retail oper- ations Target operates a distribution center in Fridley, Minnesota, a northern suburb of Minneapolis, as well as various satellite warehouses in the Twin Cities area. These warehousing and retailing operations require local transportation services During the period immediately preceding March 20, 1983, Target had retained Berry Transportation Co. (Berry) as its principal local hauler and Space Center Cartage Co. (Space Center) for addi- tional local hauling. Leaseway Transportation Corporation (Leaseway), a nationwide trucking concern, has approximately 120 wholly-owned subsidiaries which perform trucking. BHD, one of these subsidiaries, is an Ohio corporation with its principal office in Cleveland, Ohio, and engages in the interstate transportation of freight and commod- ities. Since March 21, 1983, BHD has engaged in local cartage in Minnesota as the contract carrier for Target ' All dates herein are in 1983 unless otherwise indicated TEAMSTERS LOCAL 544 (BETTER HOME) between its distribution center, warehouses, and retail stores. During the calendar year 1982 BHD derived gross revenue exceeding $50,000 from the interstate transportation of freight and commodities. In its oper- ations Target annually receives gross revenues exceeding $500,000 and receives at its distribution center in Fridley, Minnesota, directly from points outside Minnesota, goods and materials valued over $50,000. In the 7-week period following March 21, 1983, a representative period, BHD performed local transportation services for Target from which it derived gross revenues exceeding $50,000. At all times material herein BHD and Target have been em- ployers and persons engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local 544 represents employees, including truckdrivers in Minnesota. Its territorial jurisdiction includes a broad belt of Minnesota along an east-west line at the conflu- ence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers, extending from Wisconsin to South Dakota and including the area in and around Minneapolis where its union hall is locat- ed. Its sister local, Local 120, also affiliated with the Teamsters International, also represents employees, in- cluding truckdrivers, in Minnesota. Local 120's union hall is in St. Paul and its territorial jurisdiction includes a similar broad belt across Minnesota from Wisconsin on the east to South Dakota on the west and immediately south of and contiguous to the territory served by Local 544. Truckdrivers represented by each Local work in the territory of the other and the two Locals typically coop- erate on problems of mutual interest. Local cartage concerns in the Twin Cities area whose employees are represented by either Local 544 or Local 120 are signatory to the Teamster National Master Freight Agreement and the Central States Area Local Cartage Supplemental Agreement which, together, con- stitute the applicable collective-bargaining agreement with either Local. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Cancellation of the Prior Hauling Arrangement Until March 20, 1983, local hauling services for Target at its distribution center in Fridley and between there and its other warehouses and its stores which were pro- vided by Berry and to a lesser extent by Space Center, involved about 12 to 15 jobs for truckdrivers. Although the distribution center is within the territorial jurisdiction of Local 544, Berry drivers worked under a collective- bargaining agreement between that company and Local 120. Space Center employees worked under a collective- bargaining agreement with Local 544. Under these agreements drivers received $12.74 per hour plus fringe benefits which were funded by employer contributions for each driver of $55 per week to the union pension fund and $45.50 per week to the union health and wel- fare fund, totaling $100.50 a week for these fringes. Ef- fective March 20, Target terminated its business relation- ships with Berry and with Space Center, thus eliminating the jobs of the 12 to 15 drivers represented by Local 120 or Local 544. At that point Berry was already in finan- 165 cial difficulties and had filed a petition in bankruptcy, a development of which the union officials were aware B Installation of Better Home Deliveries as Local Hauler for Target Prior to the termination of its hauling arrangements with Berry and Space Center, Target arranged with BHD to assume responsibility for Target's local cartage needs starting Monday, March 21. In preparation for this, BHD advertised for drivers, interviewed applicants, and hired drivers during the preceding week The new hires were given an orientation which included the infor- mation that they would be paid $10 per hour and would receive fringe benefits including hospitalization, dental care, and life insurance coverage, and vacations and holi- days They were assured 40 hours of work per week with the possibility of overtime work BHD commenced performance of its contract with Target on the morning of Monday, March 21. The work performed was precisely the same as Berry and Space Center employees previously had performed C. Union Reaction to the Changes in Local Cartage Arrangements 1. The Union's information Charles Gale, the Local 544 steward for Space Center, had learned on Friday, March 18, that Berry and Space Center were being replaced as carriers at the Target dis- tribution center. At the Local 544 monthly membership meeting on Sunday, March 20, he reported that develop- ment to union members and officials in attendance. He informed them the replacement carrier probably would' be Leaseway, would start operations on Monday, March 21, and would be paying drivers between $ 8 and $10 an hour, although he did not know exactly what the rate would be. He also indicated that Space Center had had three to four drivers working regularly out of the 'distri- bution center and on occasion as many as six or seven Following the meeting, Charles Madden, secretary-treas- urer and chief executive officer of Local 544, telephoned Harold Yates, who held a comparable position in Local 120, to inquire whether he had any information on the matter They agreed that Madden should send a couple of business representatives to the distribution center to investigate Madden commissioned Donald Keegel and Donald Huemoeller, recording secretary and president, respectively, of Local 544 and both business representa- tives, to look into the situation the next morning. Early Monday morning Keegel and Huemoeller went to the distribution center in Fridley They observed trucks with Better Home Deliveries painted on the side being used for the same work that Berry and Space Center trucks had previously been used They also ob- served a Better Home Deliveries spotter working in the yard. They concluded that BHD was now performing the Target local cartage They also called over one of the drivers, Howard Stein, to where they had stopped their car and, without identifying themselves, asked for whom he was working. Apparently he confirmed he was working for BHD 166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Not long thereafter Stein left the distribution center in a BHD truck to make a delivery. Keegel and Hue- moeller left immediately after Stein. After traveling sev- eral miles, one of the tires on Stein's truck lost its recap and began pounding, causing him to stop on the side of the road Keegel and Huemoeller saw him pull over and also stopped to see whether they could help. During the ensuing conversation, Keegel asked him how much he was making per hour and what fringe benefits he would receive. According to Keegel, whom I credit because of his orderly and detailed testimony respecting the conver- sation, Stein replied he was receiving somewhere around $8 With respect to fringe benefits, he said he believed he had a health insurance plan but was not sure what it was. Stein testified that Huemoeller made the statement that Stein was getting paid about $8 an hour, but he could not recall either union representatives asking him, nor could be recall himself making, any response respecting wages. According to Stein, nothing was said about fringe benefits. The union agents did not ask his name, nor whether he was a union member, nor did they make any effort to enlist his support for the Union. They did ask if he was going to drive farther and, if not, whether they could give him a lift in their car. He declined, saying he only had a couple more miles to go. At the end one of them said, "You probably know we're with the union," and he replied, "Yes." Insofar as Stein's testimony varies from that of Keegel, I credit Keegel. Stein admittedly was apprehensive, believing he was being followed. When the union agents first stopped, he told them that he did not want trouble They, however, were not in fact following him. They simply were returning to the Local 544 hall along the same highway and in the same direction as he, and when he stopped, they stopped also to ask if they could help Both men had themselves been truckdrivers for many years. Keegel and Huemoeller proceeded to the Local 544 hall where they reported to Madden about 8.30 or 9 in the morning that a new local hauler was definitely in place at the distribution center performing the Target work; that its name was Better Home Deliveries with an address in Golden Valley, Minnesota; and that they had talked to a dnver who said he thought he was being paid $8 per hour They also reported that the driver thought he had some kind of health plan but they had obtained no information as to amounts According to Madden, the two business agents made no reference to a pension or retirement plan, or to life insurance, holidays, vacations, or other benefits. Based on this report, Madden conclud- ed that BHD was paying substandard wages. Early that afternoon Madden telephoned Yates again and they met in midafternoon at the Local 120 office. Based on the in- formation they then had, Madden and Yates decided to picket BHD at the distribution center. 2. Picketing at the distribution center On the morning of Tuesday, March 22, Local 544 began picketing at the distribution center and continued picketing on a daily basis without interruption until May 10 when, in compliance with a temporary restraining order of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, picketing ceased.2 Subsequently the court lifted its restraining order and on May 31 or June 1 Local 544 resumed its picketing which continued at the time of the hearing herein on June 22. The picketing thus has continued for morethan 30 days The parties stipulate that Local 544 has not filed a petition with the Board seeking a representation election among BHD employ- ees. It is undisputed that Local 544 did not contact BHD directly prior to picketing to inquire of management re- specting wages being paid or fringe benefits for employ- ees. The picket signs, in addition to the union name, car- ried the following legend: NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC, BETTER HOME DELIVERIES PAYS ITS DRIVERS A SUB- STANDARD WAGE AND FRINGE BENE- FITS. - Some of the signs were not newly fabricated for this dis- pute but were old signs used by Local 120 on prior occa- sions and were brought into service again for this dispute because the Unions were short of supplies. On these reused signs the additional words ON STRIKE had ap- peared below the above legend. An effort was made to cut off those words so the signs could be used for this dispute, but the trimming was not complete and on some enough of the top of the words ON STRIKE appeared so that a reader could make out what the words had been. The pickets and union representatives made no other effort during the picketing, or for that matter at any other time, to organize BHD employees, nor was any effort, other than the meeting solicited by management referred to below, made to communicate with the BHD management . Although the Union made no contact with management before commencing picketing, it sent a tele- gram to BHD in the afternoon of the first day of picket- ing. The telegram read as follows: IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTEN- TION YOUR TOTAL LABOR COST FOR DRIVERS AND WAREHOUSEMEN IS BELOW THAT WHICH HAS BEEN NEGOTI- ATED WITH OTHER CARRIERS IN THE AREA. UNLESS WE RECEIVE DOCUMEN- TATION TO THE CONTRARY AREA STANDARD PICKETING WILL CONTINUE AT YOUR TERMINAL AND AT SUCH OTHER LOCATIONS WHERE YOU ARE EN- GAGED IN YOUR NORMAL BUSINESS. BHD received the telegram late that afternoon or early the next morning The Union claims it received no re- sponse to the telegram. However, the parties met the fol- lowing day at the request of BHD. 2 Apparently Local 120 also supported and participated in the picket- ing but there is no contention that Local 120 engaged in unfair labor practices and it is not named as a respondent TEAMSTERS LOCAL 544 (BETTER HOME) 167 D. The Meeting on March 23 When picketing began, Target and BHD acted to es- tablish a separate gate for BHD at the distribution center by attaching a small sign to one of the gates. About 9 o'clock on the morning of Wednesday, March 23, there apparently having been no change in picketing in spite of the "separate gate," Michael Kota, a staff labor counsel for Leaseway, came from the distribution center out to the picket line and asked for Madden, who had signed the telegram from Local 544 the previous afternoon. A picket pointed him out and Kota, accompanied by Edward James, a district manager for Leaseway respon- sible for three of its subsidiaries including BHD, ap- proached Madden. Kota introduced himself and request- ed a meeting to discuss the picketing. Madden agreed, and they arranged to meet at 11 o'clock that morning at the Sheraton Inn. Kota came to the meeting with James. Madden ap- peared in the company of Keegel whose duties as busi- ness agent included representation of Space Center em- ployees. A discussion ensued about which little contro- versy exists, except for one point discussed hereinafter. Otherwise, the four participants agree in substance as to what was said, although from the record it is not possi- ble to determine the entire sequence of the comments. Madden testified, and I find, that following the introduc- tions, Kota asked what the problem was and Madden re- plied that BHD was not paying the area standard wage. Kota inquired how they knew what BHD was paying and Madden replied that they had their ways. Also, early in the discussion, according to Keegel, whom I credit, Kota asked Madden, "Why don't you leave Target alone? Why don't you organize us-what's the prob- lem?" To this Madden responded that the Union did not have a problem with Target, that the picketing was for area standards. The union officials made no inquiry during the meeting as to what wages BHD was paying. But Kota volunteered that they were paying $10 per hour. He also handed Madden a booklet entitled "Your Leaseway Transportation Corp. Non-Union Employee Benefits Plan."3 I find he also handed Madden another document entitled "Better Home Deliveries, Inc. Em- ployee Handbook," which was either enclosed in the first pamphlet or handed separately to Madden.4 Madden 3 The Leaseway Transportation Corp nonunion employee benefits plan (R Exh 1) is a 48-page pamphlet which describes in detail the vari- ous insurance benefits provided for nonunion employees of Leaseway companies, including group life insurance , accidental death and dismem- berment insurance , short- and long-term disability benefits, health insur- ance, and dental insurance 4 Better Home Deliveries, Inc employee handbook (R Exh 2) is a 26- page document supplied to BHD employees at the time of hiring which describes BHD and its relationship to Leaseway, and generally sets forth the rights and duties of BHD employees with particular reference to hours of work, employee benefits such as the employee health plan, holi- days, vacations, safety, employee disputes, discipline, and pay policies With respect to pay, no specific rates are set forth However, one of the three pay policies is, "to insure that our rates of pay compare favorably with those throughout the industry " The handbook declares that "all wages and salaries are determined by an established rate range of the po- sition you perform What you are paid depends primarily on the type of work you do and how well you do it Every job or position in the Com- pany has its own wage and/or salary rate range that expresses the value of that position to the total Company " did not examine the employee benefits plan (the first document), simply placing it down in front of him. He quickly perused the employee handbook (the second document) to see if a wage rate was indicated, but none was. Specific reference to the wage rate of BHD appar- ently arose when Keegel mentioned he had spoken with a BHD driver who told him he was receiving about $8 per hour. Kota corrected this by stating the rate was $10 per hour, a figure consistent with what was told to Stein when he was hired the week before. Although Madden had no recollection of that figure being mentioned, Keegel recalled that Kota gave some figure in response to his report of his conversation with Stein but, like Madden, did not remember the figure $10. Both Kota and James testified that Kota stated the wage rate was $10, and I credit them. Neither Madden nor Keegel asked what the company wage rate was. Kota asked Madden what the area standard was that BHD was being accused of not meeting. In responding Madden indicated that the area standard was the Team- ster National Master Freight Agreement supplemented by the Central States Local Cartage Agreement, and he further indicated in response to another question from Kota that the applicable area standard was those agree- ments word for word He testified that his intent at the meeting was that the problem between the Union and BHD could be satisfied if the Company would pay its employees in accordance with the National Master Freight Agreement and the supplemental agreement, that is, at the rate of $12.74 per hour plus fnnges comparable to those in the union agreements . But he admitted it was not acceptable to the Union for the employer to pay a lower hourly rate and provide greater fringe benefits. It is undisputed that the participants in the meeting referred to these agreements as "the book" and that they all were familiar with them although no copies were present at the meeting. According to Madden, whose account of the meeting I credit in this respect, he stated that the Union's sole purpose in picketing was for area standards and that if BHD would pay the area standard, the Union -`would walk away." Neither union official asked for the names and address- es of BHD employees According to Madden, Kota told him the Union should get off Target's back and organize the BHD drivers and that Madden responded that the Union had no dispute with Target and was not interested in the BHD employees, that the Union had plenty of laid-off drivers already. Madden said the Berry employ- ees already had lost their jobs as a result of BHD taking over the Target contract, and Keegel complained that Space Center employees also had lost jobs. Kota ex- pressed surprise regarding the asserted loss of jobs with Berry since he had understood Berry was either already in bankruptcy or involved in a reorganization proceed- ing.5 Following the interchange about Berry and Space Center, Kota asked Madden what it would take to re- solve the dispute. According to Kota and James, 5 Madden's testimony indicates that as of the time of the Local 544 general membership meeting on Sunday, March 20, he already knew that Berry had filed a petition in bankruptcy 168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Madden replied, "Sign the book," but according to Madden and Keegel, he said, "Pay the book." Both James and Keegel indicate that the remark, in whichever form uttered, was made twice during the meeting. In support of his version that he said "pay" rather than "sign" the book, Madden testified that he had no copies of the union contract with him and if his purpose had been to obtain the signature of BHD on a collective-bar- gaining agreement, he would have brought a copy to the meeting The testimony of Kota and James, on the other hand, is supported by a prior consistent statement of James in his affidavit given on March 23, the same day as the meeting, during investigation of charges against Local 544 filed by BHD under Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. In pertinent part the affidavit reads, "Toward the end of the meeting Kota asked Madden what it would take to settle the picketing. Madden said sign the book." In resolving the credibility conflict as to whether Madden said "sign the book" or "pay the book," de- meanor of the witnesses is of little help. Each of the four participants in the meeting appeared believable James and Keegel were more general in their accounts and ap- parently were more observers than participants Kota and Madden gave fuller accounts, particularly Kota who also seemed to have a more precise recollection of the sequence of remarks. In his testimony Madden logically argued that, if he had had a recognition object, he would have brought a copy of the agreement with him. On the other hand, the sworn affidavit of James, made very shortly after the event, tips the scales of credibility reso- lution toward the version of Kota and James According- ly, I find that Madden said "Sign the book" Shortly after this, the meeting broke up, having lasted only 10 or 15 minutes . In addition to the comments referred to above, those at the meeting also discussed what BHD claimed was secondary boycott conduct by Local 544. E. The Appeal to Union Membership On March 29 Madden sent the following notice to all members of Local 544. URGENT NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS ACTIVE - ON WITHDRAWAL - OR RETIRED Dear Member This Local Union and our sister Local Union No. 120 is currently engaged in a very bitter struggle to preserve Union jobs. Your help is urgently needed. On Monday, March 21st, Target Stores, Division of Dayton-Hudson Corporation, replaced a Union cartage company with a non-union company and 15 Teamsters were immediately put out of work. On Tuesday, March 22nd, this Local Union established a picket line at the Target Warehouse, 7120 N E. Highway 65 in Fridley against the new non-union carrier - Better Home Delivery Service We desperately need your help to maintain this picket line. We have pickets active from 6:00 A.M to Midnight each day and we need you to donate an hour or two of your free time to help us main- tam this picket line WE MUST PRESERVE THESE UNION JOBS BECAUSE YOURS COULD BE NEXT. We already know that on Monday, April 11th, 24 additional Teamsters will be replaced from their jobs as Emery Air Freight pickup and delivery em- ployees. These jobs are being replaced by the larg- est non-union cartage company in town - M W. Ettinger. We cannot continue to allow this erosion of Union jobs We are planning a Union Rally to be held in the third floor auditorium at 2636 Portland Avenue South, Minneapolis, at 10:00 A.M on Sunday, April 10th. It is imperative that each and every member of this Local Union who can possi- bly make it attend this meeting THE NEED IS NOW. WE MUST RE-UNITE TO PRESERVE THESE UNION JOBS We are hoping to have a representative from the Chicago office of the Cen- tral Conference of Teamsters to speak at this rally. Again, I repeat, do not forget - the next job lost could be yours. Please help us in Fridley and plan to be in attendance at our Rally on April 10th Fraternally yours, LOCAL NO 544 CHARLES T MADDEN Secretary-Treasurer The General Counsel and BHD urge that this notice tends to show a recognitional object for the picketing be- cause it characterizes the dispute as "a very bitter strug- gle to preserve union jobs," and because at two other points it emphatically declares the Union's purpose to "preserve these union jobs " It seems to me that the strength of the union protest is immaterial to the issue presented here, namely, the object of the Union's picket- ing. The Union could and in fact is entitled to be as ener- getic in pursuit of one object as another The strength of the Union's effort is immaterial in determining whether that object is or is not lawful. On the other hand, the re- peated reference to preserving "these union jobs" indi- cates a purpose to either achieve unionization of the jobs through recognition of the Union as the representative of employees now holding those jobs or a secondary boy- cott purpose of forcing Target to return the local cartage contract to Berry and Space Center whose unionized employees previously held the jobs, or both. Thus, the notice to members corroborates the other evidence pre- viously cited indicating Respondent entertained a recog- nitional object in picketing BHD. F Rejected Evidence Under Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act a union may not picket to obtain recognition or bargaining or to organize the employees unless within a reasonable time, not to exceed 30 days, it petitions the Board for an election to resolve whether it is entitled to represent the employees. Here, Local 544 has picketed for more than 30 days and has not petitioned the Board for an election. Whether the Union's conduct is an unfair labor practice under Section 8(b)(7)(C) turns, therefore, on whether an object of the TEAMSTERS LOCAL 544 (BETTER HOME) picketing is to obtain recognition or bargaining from BHD or to organize its employees, or only for other pur- poses. As part of the affirmative case, BHD offered certain evidence which was rejected and in its posthearing brief again urges that that evidence be considered As noted previously, BHD, in addition to filing the charges in the instant proceeding, also filed charges under Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act asserting that Local 544, in the course of its dispute with BHD, engaged in secondary boycott conduct forbidden by the Act During the inves- tigation of these charges, the General Counsel reached a settlement agreement with Local 544 respecting them and no complaint issued alleging that Local 544 violated Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act BHD did not participate in this settlement BHD also filed charges with the Board asserting that Local 544, in connection with its picketing at the distri- bution center and related conduct, committed unfair labor practices prohibited by Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. After investigation of these charges, the General Counsel issued a complaint alleging that the Union had engaged in such unfair labor practices and the Board's Regional Director ordered this complaint consolidated for hearing and decision with the complaint in the present 8(b)(7)(C) case. However, prior to the hearing, the General Counsel reached agreement on a settlement with Local 544 respecting the alleged 8(b)(1)(A) unfair labor practices and the two complaints were severed by the Regional Director. As with the settlement of the sec- ondary boycott charges, BHD did not agree to settle- ment of the 8(b)(1)(A) complaint. During the hearing in the present 8(b)(7)(C) proceed- ing, counsel for BHD offered to prove in support of the allegation that the picketing was for a recognitional or organizational object that during the first 3 days of the picketing Local 544 picketed gates at the distribution center reserved for Target and others not doing business with BHD, and also that during the extended period of picketing the Union picketed at times and at places when BHD was not present. That evidence, which was reject- ed, apparently would have been the basis of any affirma- tive case of secondary boycott unfair labor practices founded on the 8(b)(4)(B) charges which were settled. Counsel for BHD also offered to prove, but was not al- lowed to, that during the picketing union pickets and of- ficials were arrested by the police, that BHD equipment was damaged on many occasions, that on occasion nails and other objects were thrown into the entrances to the distribution center, and that on numerous occasions Local 544 officials and others followed BHD delivery trucks to other locations. This evidence apparently would have been part of the affirmative case to support the 8(b)(1)(A) complaint against Local 544 which was severed and settled between the General Counsel and the Union In the same vein, counsel for BHD offered to prove, but was not allowed to, that in disobedience of a Minnesota State Court order limiting the number of pick- ets at the distribution center, Local 544 picketed with as many as 40 to 50 pickets These offers of proof were rejected on the ground that evidence of another object proscribed by the Act, such 169 as a secondary object, did not tend to show an object prohibited by Section 8(b)(7)(C) Secondly, evidence rel- evant to the 8(b)(1)(A) complaint, such as violence or other unacceptably strong action in support of the Union's side of the dispute, did not tend to establish a re- cognitional or organizational object, as distinguished from nonrecognitional and nonorganizational objects, be- cause the evidence offered could equally relate to such other objectives such as the protesting of the payment of below area standard wages, and would not relate in a material way to the issue of whether the Union's objec- tive was or was not one prohibited by Section 8(b)(7)(C) The proffered evidence was also rejected because, for the most part, it would have formed the basis for the 8(b)(4)(B) and the 8(b)(1)(A) cases which the General Counsel had settled. While it is true that the Charging Party refused to join in either settlement, Section 3(d) of the Act makes clear that the General Counsel bears the statutory responsibility for tailoring causes of action in Board proceedings. In pertinent part that section pro- vides, "He shall have final authority, on behalf of the Board, in respect of the investigation of charges and issu- ance of complaints under Section 10, and in respect of the prosecution of such complaints before the Board . . . ." Inasmuch as the General Counsel had already settled those other matters, and even though the General Counsel took no position respecting the offers of proof in the present matter, I deem it inappropriate for the order- ly management of Board unfair labor practice hearings to litigate matters already settled which do not have a ma- terial impact on dispositive issues in the current matter. Accordingly, I adhere to the rulings made during the hearing rejecting the above-described evidence. G. Discussion of the Objects of the Picketing On the dispositive issue of the objects of the picketing, Respondent's general defense is that the affirmative case fails to establish that a recognitional or an organizational object was involved There is evidence on both sides of that issue, but considering the entire record I find a pre- ponderance of the evidence establishes that Local 544 picketed the distribution center with a recognitional and an organizational object. The Union asserts it has picketed to protest the failure of BHD to meet area standards in terms of pay and bene- fits, and there is evidence to support that position. The General Counsel and BHD , on the other hand, contend that some of the Union 's conduct is inconsistent with its claimed position and indicates instead that that position is a pretext . The moving parties point first to the Union's failure to inquire of BHD, in advance of picketing, as to the wages and benefits the Company was giving its em- ployees. The point is well taken because the employer itself possessed the most information respecting wages and benefits, and failure to tap that source of information suggests the Union was not then interested in learning what the Company was, or claimed to be, doing in this regard . The General Counsel, and particularly BHD, contend further that the Union did not investigate, or sufficiently investigate , what BHD employees were re- ceiving I agree. Some information came to the Union 170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD prior to the picketing through the Space Center steward at the general membership meeting on March 20, and through the efforts of Keegel and Huemoeller in going to the distribution center early on March 21 and in talk- ing to Howard Stein there and on the highway. These efforts certainly establish some investigation. But the in- vestigation was not exhaustive and the information ob- tained was sketchy. See General Service Employees Union Local 73 (A-1 Security Service), 224 NLRB 434 (1976), at 435-436, Carpenters Local 1622 (Iacono Structural Engi- neer), 250 NLRB 416, 418-419 (1980); Teamsters Local 88 (West Coast Cycle Supply), 208 NLRB 679 (1974). At the same time, the Union ignored the most obvious source of information about wages and fringe benefits, BHD itself, and the Union's purpose in picketing must be construed in that context. San Francisco Local Executive Board (APB Enterprises), 207 NLRB 199 (1973) at 204. A similar point in support of the affirmative case is the fact that Local 544 began its picketing on Monday morn- ing without notice to BHD or opportunity for it to comply with the claimed area standards before sustaining the inconveniences and disadvantages attendant upon the picketing at the distribution center. See Teamsters Local 456 (Construction City Corp.), 233 NLRB 418 (1977) The Union's ignoring of the possibility that this employer might comply with the Union's area standards suggests, again, that the Union was not interested in mere compli- ance with area standards but had some other purpose. Of course in the early afternoon on the first day of picketing Madden did send an appropriate notice to BHD asserting it had information that the Company's total labor cost was below that negotiated for other carriers in the area, and soliciting documentary proof to the contrary But that notice came after BHD and Target, as well as their employees, had already felt the initial impact of picketing and does not dispel the inference that in engaging in that initial picketing the Union was not interested in giving BHD an opportunity to comply with the claimed area standards As to the picketing itself, I find the picket signs did not indicate an organizational or a recognitional purpose The signs simply protested substandard wages and fringe benefits The fact that on some signs the top portion of the words ON STRIKE was still visible is immaterial. Explanatory evidence indicates that these were simply old signs used by Local 120 on a previous occasion and which were pressed into service, with at least the lower half of the words ON STRIKE being cut off, only be- cause the Unions were short of sign material. It does not appear that anyone was misled At no time in the course of this dispute has Local 544 engaged in conduct which could be construed as a typical organizing effort or appeal Nor has it asked BHD to sign a collective-bar- gaining agreement with it. On the contrary, at the meet- ing with BHD officials on March 23, Madden disclaimed any interest in representing BHD employees The clearest indication of a recognitional object oc- curred at the meeting on March 23 when Madden, in re- sponse to Kota's inquiry as to what it would take to settle the matter, stated, "Sign the book " See Carpenters Local 745 (James W. Glover, Ltd.), 178 NLRB 684 fn. 1 (1969), enfd. 450 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir. 1971); Plumbers Local 129 (Gross Plumbing), 244 NLRB 693 (1979), Elec- trical Workers IBEW Local 211 (Atlantic Authority), 248 NLRB 168, 173 (1980) Even if, as Respondent contends, Madden did not say that but rather said, "Pay the book," a recognitional object is demonstrated. "The book" was understood by all to be the National Master Freight Agreement along with the Central States Local Cartage Supplement "word for word " Although some evidence indicates that in outlying areas of the territorial jurisdic- tion of Local 544 some collective-bargaining agreements vary from the standard agreement, and that some em- ployers in other areas and States have negotiated collec- tive-bargaining agreements with Teamsters unions which vary from that norm, there is no evidence that that has occurred in and around Minneapolis and St. Paul. Madden was clear on the point that the National Master Freight Agreement with the Central States Local Cart- age Supplement is the area standard for the Twin Cities which the Union was attempting to enforce by its picket- ing. In answer to a question from the bench, he indicated that a nonsignatory employer could not meet area stand- ards by paying a lower than contract wage rate while granting higher than contract fringe benefits. Although Respondent's counsel asserted that this was factually in- accurate, he was not the witness, and in any case Mad- den's answer reflects his intentions in pursuing the dis- pute with BHD This testimony of Madden and the evi- dence that the pay and benefits terms he sought were the union contract "word for word" belie his position in the March 21 telegram to BHD that "Your total labor cost for drivers and warehousemen is below that which has been negotiated with other carriers in the area " Mad- den's real position was that not only total labor cost, but each component of labor cost, must match the standard union agreement Having an adequate total labor cost would not suffice if the components of the package were divided differently than prescribed by "the book " As in Teamsters Local 456 (Construction City Corp.), supra, 233 NLRB 1418 at 1420, the Union here "is attempting to engage in pro tanto bargaining to gain benefits for em- ployees which it does not claim to represent" and in ro doing demonstrates its recognitional object. See al; Retail Clerks (State-Mart), 166 NLRB 818, 823 (1967) enfd 404 F.2d 855 (9th Cir 1968), Local Joint Executive Board (Holiday Inns of America), 169 NLRB 683, 684 (1968), NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW, 604 F.2d 1091, 1097 (8th Cir 1979). Local 544 continued with its picketing campaign with knowledge gained at the March 23 meeting that BHD was paying employees $10 per hour, clearly less than the $12.74 per hour provided for in the standard union agreement, but with attractive fringe benefits as indicated by the two documents handed Madden in that meeting. Whether, as an entire package, this is more or less than the Union's standard agreement is not apparent from this record because the union agreements were not offered. Given the circumstances here, I find the Union's pur- pose was to require BHD to put into effect the identical employment terms and benefits set out in the National Master Freight Agreement with the Central States Local Cartage Supplement, which was the collective-bargain- TEAMSTERS LOCAL 544 (BETTER HOME) 171 ing agreement between the Union and other local cart- age haulers in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area That re- quirement reflects a purpose to impose a collective-bar- gaining relationship on BHD and its employees. Local Joint Executive Board (Holiday Inn of Las Vegas), supra As the Supreme Court stated in NLRB v. Ironworkers, 434 U.S. 335, 341-342 fn. 7 (1978), A type of activity frequently found to violate Sec- tion 8(b)(7) is picketing ostensibly for the purpose of forcing an employer to abide by terms incorpo- rated into agreements between the union and other employers Even in cases where the union expressly disavows any recognitional intent, acceptance of the uniform terms proposed by the union can have the "net effect" of establishing the union "as the negoti- ator of wage rates and benefits " Centralia Building & Construction Trades Council v. NLRB, 124 U.S. App D.C. 212, 214, 363 F.2d 699, 701 (1966) These findings are reinforced by the Union's notice to members on March 29, indicating its campaign was to preserve "these union jobs," namely, at the distribution center Although there is no evidence here of customary orga- nizing by the Union among BHD employees, and in fact Madden in effect disclaimed any interest in organizing them during the meeting on March 22, the picketing nec- essarily had an impact on them which was in furtherance of an organizational object because it was the Union's tool for negotiating their wage rates and benefits wheth- er or not they so desired, thereby forcing or requiring the employees to accept the results of the Union's ef- forts Based on the foregoing, I find that Respondent violat- ed Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act by its picketing of BHD at the distribution center for more than 30 days where an object of the picketing was recognitional and organiza- tional and without petitioning the Board for a representa- tion election CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Better Home Deliveries, Inc. and Target, Inc are employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Respondent Union, Over-the-Road, City Trans- fer, Cold Storage, Grocery and Market Drivers and Helpers, Inside Employees, Local Union No. 544, affili- ated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3. By picketing Better Home Deliveries, Inc , for more than 30 days from March 22, 1983, with an object of forcing or requiring Better Home Deliveries, Inc, to rec- ognize or bargain with the Union as the representative of its employees and forcing and requiring such employees to accept or select the Union as their collective-bargain- ing representative without filing a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act, Respondent Union engaged, and is en- gaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. 4. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, I recommend it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- eds ORDER The Respondent, Over-the-Road, City Transfer, Cold Storage, Grocery and Market Drivers and Helpers, Inside Employees, Local Union No. 544 affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Minneapolis, Minnesota, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from picketing, or causing to be picketed, Better Home Deliveries, Inc., where an object thereof is forcing or requiring such employer to recog- nize or bargain with Respondent as the collective-bar- gaining representative of its employees, or forcing or re- quiring employees of such employer to accept or select Respondent as their collective-bargaining representative at a time when Respondent is not certified as such repre- sentative and where such picketing has been conducted without a petition under Section 9(c) being filed within a reasonable time not to exceed 30 days from the com- mencement of such picketing 2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec- essary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Post at its business office copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 18, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi- al (b) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 18 signed copies of said notice for posting by Better Home Deliveries, Inc., if willing, in places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted 6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board " 172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed Better Home Deliveries, Inc , where an object thereof is forcing or requiring such employer to recognize or bargain with us as a collective-bargaining representative, or forcing or requiring employees of such employer to accept or select us as their collective-bargaining representative, at a time when we are not certified as such representative and where such picketing has been conducted without a peti- tion under Section 9(c) of the Act being filed within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 30 days from the commencement of such picketing. OVER-THE-ROAD, CITY TRANSFER, COLD STORAGE, GROCERY AND MARKET DRIV- ERS AND HELPERS, INSIDE EMPLOYEES, LOCAL UNION No. 544, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA