Section 45 Evidence of Recognitional Picketing

• Library: Employer-Employee Law 2008

Picketing directed at an employer’s alleged failure to pay area wages and benefits commonly masks recognitional picketing. Factors such as union inquiries of the picketed employer before commencement of picketing, the union’s actual knowledge of the employees’ wages and benefits, and the past relationship between the parties are considered in determining whether the picketing is recognitional. Over-the-Road, City Transfer, Cold Storage, Grocery & Mkt. Drivers & Helpers, Inside Employees, Local Union No. 544, 274 N.L.R.B. 164 (1985); see also Auto. Employees, Laundry Drivers & Helpers, Local No. 88,
208 N.L.R.B. 679 (1974); Sales Delivery Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Local 296 of Santa Clara & San Benito Counties, Cal.,
205 N.L.R.B. 462 (1973). Also, the union must have area standards picketing as its sole purpose to claim that its picketing is not recognitional under NRLA § 8(b)(7). NLRB v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 265, 604 F.2d 1091 (8^th Cir. 1979).

In determining whether picketing is for recognitional purposes, the language of the picket signs used is an indicator of the union’s intentions. When the signs use language that refers to “working conditions” rather than merely referring to wages and area standards, recognitional picketing is most likely the intent. Congress of Indep. Unions v. NLRB, 620 F.2d 172 (8^th Cir. 1980). The following conduct also indicates a recognitional purpose:

• Demands of wages beyond those needed to protect area standards, Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n, Local Union No. 899, AFL-CIO, 166 N.L.R.B. 818 (1967)

• Ignorance of area labor standards, Carpenters Local Union 1260, United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., AFL-CIO, 210 N.L.R.B. 628 (1974)

• Recognitional demands, Local 445, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters,...