Arlie Heald, business agent for Local 265 (IBEW), had been told by Roger Trautwein, president of RP&M Electric Company, that RP&M might be interested in signing a collective bargaining agreement with the union for its employees. After several attempts by Heald to begin negotiations with RP&M, Trautwein told him that the company was no longer interested. The union did not file a Section 9(c) recognition petition on behalf of the RP&M employees, but Heald did send a letter to Trautwein citing the "substandard wages, hours, and working conditions" of the RP&M employees. The union stated in the letter that it recognized the right of RP&M to be nonunion.
However, the union asked Trautwein to pay his employees "union scale wages" and offer working conditions similar to those secured by the union. If RP&M did not comply with this request, Heald promised to inform the public, through picketing, of the substandard employment conditions at RP&M. For two months, pickets from Local 265 patrolled RP&M jobsites with signs stating, "RP&M Electric does not pay Union scale wages," which caused some disruption of work. RP&M filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB and claimed that the union violated Section 8(b)(7) by picketing for recognition.
The union defended its action as informational picketing sanctioned under Section 8(b)(7) of the NLRA. What factors should the NLRB weigh when deciding this case? Is Local 265's picketing lawful? Decide.