NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,464, LOCAL UNION NO. 274, HOTEL EMPLOYEES AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO and STADIUM HOTEL PARTNERS, INC. et al., (Aug. 31, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Aug 31, 1994)

LOCAL UNION NO. 274, HOTEL EMPLOYEES AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO and STADIUM HOTEL PARTNERS, INC. et al.

314 NLRB No. 161.Case Nos. 4-CP-441, -442 and 4-CB-6960. August 31, 1994 Benjamin Schlesinger, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Stephens and Devaney.

William Slack and Sheila Mayberry, for General Counsel. Bernard N. Katz and Adam H. Feinstein (Meranze and Katz), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Respondent Union. Philip Keating (argued) and Jay P. Krupin (David & Hagner, P.C.), Washington, DC, for Charging Party.

Recognitional Picketing--Evidence of Purpose--Employer Refuses to Recognize.--By picketing an employer in order to force the employer to recognize a union as an employee representative, at a time when the union was not currently so certified, the union committed an unlawful act. The union previously met with the employer and, after the employer refused to recognize or bargain with it, commenced its picketing activities without filing a petition seeking recognition with the NLRB in a timely manner. Section 8(b)(7)(C).

Back reference: ¶5150.231.

From Text of Board’s Decision

The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions [1] and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, [2] findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.

¹	The Respondent has filed a request for oral argument. The request is denied as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
²	The General Counsel has excepted to the judge’s granting of the Respondent’s motion to strike the complaint allegations that certain unions acted as agents of the Respondent. Although we agree with the judge’s granting of the motion, we do not adopt the judge’s characterization of those allegations as “mere surplusage” and a “waste” of time at the hearing.

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,464, LOCAL UNION NO. 274, HOTEL EMPLOYEES AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO and STADIUM HOTEL PARTNERS, INC. et al., (Aug. 31, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Aug 31, 1994)

LOCAL UNION NO. 274, HOTEL EMPLOYEES AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO and STADIUM HOTEL PARTNERS, INC. et al.

314 NLRB No. 161.Case Nos. 4-CP-441, -442 and 4-CB-6960. August 31, 1994 Benjamin Schlesinger, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Stephens and Devaney.

Back reference: ¶5150.231.

From Text of Board’s Decision

¹	The Respondent has filed a request for oral argument. The request is denied as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
²	The General Counsel has excepted to the judge’s granting of the Respondent’s motion to strike the complaint allegations that certain unions acted as agents of the Respondent. Although we agree with the judge’s granting of the motion, we do not adopt the judge’s characterization of those allegations as “mere surplusage” and a “waste” of time at the hearing.

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,464, LOCAL UNION NO. 274, HOTEL EMPLOYEES AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO and STADIUM HOTEL PARTNERS, INC. et al., (Aug. 31, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Aug 31, 1994)

From Text of Board’s Decision

Footnotes

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,464, LOCAL UNION NO. 274, HOTEL EMPLOYEES AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO and STADIUM HOTEL PARTNERS, INC. et al., (Aug. 31, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Aug 31, 1994)

From Text of Board’s Decision

Footnotes