Houston Building and Construction Trades Council (Claude Everett Construction)

Houston Building and Construction Trades Council (the council) (defendant), a council of local unions, learned that Claude Everett Construction Company (Claude) paid its employees lower wages than the wages negotiated in the area by the unions in the council. The council sent Claude a letter protesting Claude’s wages and threatening to picket Claude’s construction site unless Claude raised its wage rates. Claude did not respond, and the council began picketing Claude’s construction site with a sign stating that the council was protesting substandard wages and conditions at Claude’s site. The sign stated that the picketing was not intended to induce or encourage any other employer’s employees to strike or refuse to work. The council never sought recognition by Claude as its employees’ bargaining representative, nor did the council solicit any of Claude’s employees to join any of the council’s unions. The picketing continued without a grievance petition for longer than the 30-day period provided by § 8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) . Both the council and Claude agreed that the picketing caused individuals employed by suppliers, service companies, and common carriers not to make pickups or deliveries or perform other services for Claude. In an action against the council alleging that the picketing violated § 8(b)(7)(C), a trial examiner found that the council had picketed Claude to make Claude conform its wages to the prevailing union standards in the area, which the examiner ruled was recognitional or organizational picketing that violated § 8(b)(7)(C). However, following the trial examiner’s decision, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled in a different case that union picketing with the stated goal of requiring an employer to conform to prevailing employment standards should not be considered recognitional picketing because the union could simply have legitimate concerns about the employer’s substandard practices. The NLRB reviewed the trial examiner’s decision in light of that ruling.