Carpenters Local Union No. 1506 (Associated General Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 1137 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

CARPENTERS LOCAL 1506 (AGC)
355 NLRB No. 191
1137
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local Union No. 1506 and Associated
General Contractors of America, San Diego
Chapter, Inc. and Today’s IV, Inc., d/b/a The
Westin Bonaventure Hotel and Suites and Eli-
ason & Knuth of Arizona, Inc. and Six Conti-
nents Hotels, Inc., d/b/a InterContinental Hotels
Group. Cases 28–CC–946, 28–CC–947, 28–CC–
950, and 28–CC–951 (formerly 21–CC–3322)
September 22, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BECKER, PEARCE, AND HAYES
The issue before the Board in this case is the same as
in the companion case, Carpenters Local 1506 (Eliason
& Knuth of Arizona), 355 NLRB 811 (2010) (Eliason):
whether the Respondent Union, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No.
1506 (the Union), in furtherance of a labor dispute with a
primary employer, violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the
Act by displaying at the location of a secondary em-
ployer a large banner proclaiming a “labor dispute.” We
follow the holding of Eliason in this case and find that
the Union’s conduct did not violate Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT1
I. JURISDICTION2
The parties have stipulated to the status of all relevant
companies as persons and/or employers engaged in
commerce and in industries affecting commerce within
the meaning of Sections 2(1), (2), (6), and (7) and
8(b)(4). The parties also stipulate that the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5).
Based on these stipulations, we find that the Board pos-
sesses jurisdiction over this matter.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
At all material times, the Union has been engaged in
primary labor disputes with Brady Company/San Diego,
Inc. (Brady), Precision Hotel Interiors, Inc. (Precision),
and Eliason & Knuth. The Union has criticized these
employers (the primary employers or “primaries”) for
not meeting area labor standards. At all relevant times,
the Union was not recognized or certified as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of any employees em-
ployed by Grossmont Hospital Corporation (Grossmont
Hospital), InterContinental Hotels, North Face Invest-
ments, LLC (North Face), Sharp Memorial Hospital,

1 This case was presented to the Board based on stipulated facts.
2 On March 24, 2003, the Associated General Contractors of Amer-
ica, San Diego Chapter, Inc. (AGC) filed a charge in Case 28–CC–946
against the Union. On March 28, Today’s IV, Inc. d/b/a The Westin
Bonaventure Hotel and Suites (Westin Bonaventure) filed a charge in
Case 28–CC–947 against the Union. On April 18, the General Counsel
issued complaint based on these charges. On May 21, Eliason & Knuth
of Arizona, Inc. (Eliason & Knuth) filed a charge in Case 28–CC–950
against the Union. On May 30, Six Continents Hotels, Inc., d/b/a In-
terContinental Hotels Group (InterContinental Hotels) filed a charge in
Case 28–CC–951 against the Union. On July 22, the General Counsel
issued an order further consolidating cases, second consolidated com-
plaint and notice of hearing, which issued complaint on these two
charges and consolidated them with the prior complaint. The consoli-
dated complaint alleges that the Union violated Sec. 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by
threatening, coercing, or restraining certain secondary employers or
persons with an object to force or require them to cease handling or
otherwise dealing in the products of, and to cease doing business with,
certain other employers.
On October 30, the General Counsel, the Union, and the Charging
Parties filed with the Board a joint motion to transfer the proceeding to
the Board and for approval of the parties’ stipulation of facts. The
parties agreed that the stipulation of facts and attached exhibits consti-
tuted the entire record in these cases, that no oral testimony was neces-
sary or desired by any of the parties, and that they waived a hearing and
decision by an administrative law judge. On January 29, 2004, the
Board approved the stipulation and transferred the proceeding to the
Board for issuance of a decision and order. Thereafter, the General
Counsel, the Union, Charging Parties AGC, Eliason & Knuth, and
Today’s IV filed briefs. Charging Party InterContinental Hotels joined
in the General Counsel’s brief. The General Counsel also filed an
answering brief.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1138
12th & A Hotel Partners, Target Stores, Inc., or Westin
Bonaventure, nor had it demanded recognition as the
collective-bargaining representative of, or sought to or-
ganize, any employees employed by these secondary
employers.3
In furtherance of the labor disputes with the primary
employers, the Union displayed banners during eight sets
of demonstrations, discussed in detail in appendix B, all
of which possessed the following characteristics. The
Union placed and maintained a banner on a public side-
walk outside of the secondary employer’s facility, facing
automobile traffic on a busy public street. The banners
were 4 feet high and either 16 or 20 feet long and read:
“Shame on [secondary employer]” in large letters,
flanked on either side by “Labor Dispute” in smaller let-
ters. They were placed anywhere from 40 feet to 1 mile
away from the entrances to the secondaries’ establish-
ments or jobsites. At each demonstration, two or three
union representatives held up the banner, but did not
move the banner around the location of the demonstra-
tion.
The union representatives also distributed handbills to
anyone who approached them and inquired about the
demonstration. The handbill was entitled “Shame on
[secondary employer] for Desecration of the American
Way of Life” and included a drawing of a rat gnawing on
an American flag.4 The handbills stated that the Union
had a labor dispute with the primary employer based on
its failure to respect area labor standards and criticized
the secondary employer for hiring the primary as a sub-
contractor on the project in question. The banner bearers
did not engage in chanting, yelling, marching, or similar
conduct. At no time did they physically block the in-
gress or egress of any person wishing to enter or leave
the secondaries’ facilities, nor did they engage in any
other activity that could be considered confrontational.
B. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel and the Charging Parties assert
that the Union’s display of banners violated Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) because it constituted coercive conduct that
had an object of forcing the secondary employers to
cease doing business with the primary employers. Their
arguments match those made in Eliason, supra. They
contend, first, that posting individuals at or near the en-
trances of the secondaries’ facilities to hold banners that
declared a labor dispute constituted picketing, and was

3 App. A describes the relationships among the various companies at
each location where banners were displayed.
4 The text of the handbill distributed by the Union’s representatives
at Grossmont Hospital is attached as app. C. The handbills distributed
at the facilities named other primary and secondary employers, but
otherwise varied only minimally in their wording from this example.
thus coercive conduct. Second, the General Counsel and
Charging Parties contend that “fraudulent” wording on
the banners misled the public into believing that the Un-
ion had a primary labor dispute with the secondaries re-
garding the treatment of their employees. This alleged
deception, they argue, constituted “economic retaliation”
against the secondaries, which should be deemed coer-
cive and proscribed.5
In response, the Union argues that the secondary boy-
cott provisions of Section 8(b)(4) are not intended to
reach its display of banners. Relying on the Supreme
Court’s decision in DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf
Coast Bldg. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988), the
Union contends that the Court has instructed the Board to
avoid, if possible, construing the statutory phrase
“threaten, coerce, or restrain” in a manner that would
raise serious problems under the First Amendment. The
Union argues that the conduct here does not materially
differ from the handbilling found lawful by the Court in
DeBartolo, supra. As for the contention that the banners’
message was fraudulent, the Union responds that the
message was both accurate and constitutionally pro-
tected.
Discussion
We find that the Union’s conduct in this case was, for
all relevant purposes, the same as the conduct found law-
ful in our recent decision in Eliason, supra. We note that
in this case, as described in appendix B, the Union posi-
tioned most of the banners at the “inside” edge of the
sidewalk in the vicinity of the secondary’s premises, that
is, with the sidewalk between the banner and the street.
In all instances, the Union displayed the banner facing
the street. In Eliason, supra, the banners placed on side-
walks were displayed on the “outside” edge of the side-
walk, that is, they were placed almost directly adjacent to
the street and also faced the street. 355 NLRB No. 159,
slip op. at 2. As in Eliason, however, “[T]he sidewalk
remained completely clear for anyone wishing to enter
the [premises].” Id., slip op. at 6 fn. 19. While position-
ing a banner on the inside edge of the sidewalk allows
pedestrians to pass in front of the banner and, if they so
choose, to read its message more easily than if it were
placed on the outside edge, we do not find that this fac-
tual difference distinguishes the conduct here from that
found lawful in Eliason. More effective communication
of the noncoercive message on the banners to the audi-
ence of pedestrians in no way renders the banner displays
coercive. In addition, while the banner holders in this
case faced the sidewalk and, therefore, could more easily

5 Charging Party AGC did not assert that the message on the banner
was fraudulent.
CARPENTERS LOCAL 1506 (AGC) 1139
observe those passing by than could the protestors in
Eliason, the same is true of all individuals who distribute
handbills and thus come face-to-face with passersby in
an activity nonetheless held noncoercive in DeBartolo.
As in Eliason, “[t]here is no evidence that the banner
holders kept any form of lists of employees or others
entering the site or even interacted with passersby, other
than to offer a handbill.” Id. slip op. at 7. Thus, as in
Eliason, we do not find that the Union “‘posted’ the in-
dividuals holding the banners at the ‘approach’ to a sec-
ondary’s place of business in a manner that could have
been perceived as threatening to those entering the sites.”
Id. In short, we do not find that the placement of the
banners on the inside instead of on the outside of the
sidewalk renders their display picketing or otherwise
coercive in light of our holding in Eliason.
Therefore, applying Eliason, we conclude that, absent
the use of traditional picket signs, patrolling, blocking of
ingress or egress, or some other evidence of coercion, the
display of banners in this case was not coercive and
therefore did not violate Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.

MEMBER HAYES, dissenting.
The bannering activity at issue in this case is essen-
tially the same as in Carpenters Local 1506 (Eliason &
Knuth of Arizona), 355 NLRB No. 159 (2010). For the
reasons fully set forth in the joint dissent in that case, I
would find a violation here. The bannering involves the
placement of union agents holding large banners proxi-
mate to the premises of neutral employers who have
done or are doing business with employers who are the
primary targets in a labor dispute with the Respondent.
The predominate element of such bannering is confronta-
tional conduct, rather than persuasive speech, designed to
promote a total boycott of the neutral employers’ busi-
nesses, and thereby to further an objective of forcing
those employers to cease doing business with the primary
employers in the labor dispute. Like picketing, this ban-
nering activity is the precise evil that Congress intended
to outlaw through Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), and the pro-
scription of this conduct raises no constitutional con-
cerns. I therefore dissent from my colleagues’ failure to
enforce the Act as intended.

APPENDIX A
In the Stipulation of Facts, the parties stipulated to the status
of the following companies as persons and/or employers en-
gaged in commerce and in industries affecting commerce
within the meaning of the Act. They are grouped by location
below. Each grouping also describes the relationship between
the owner of the facilities, its general contractor, and the rele-
vant subcontractor. The parties did not stipulate to the status of
the general contractors as persons or employers engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
Grossmont Hospital
--Grossmont Hospital, a California corporation, with an office
and place of business in San Diego, California, has been en-
gaged in providing medical services.

--Brady, a California corporation with an office and place of
business in La Mesa, California, has been engaged as a contrac-
tor in the building and construction industry, providing carpen-
try services for commercial construction projects.

--Grossmont Hospital hired Sundt Construction Company to be
the general contractor for the construction of a building addi-
tion. Sundt Construction subcontracted with Brady to perform
construction work on the project.

Sharp Memorial Hospital
--Sharp Memorial Hospital, a California corporation, with an
office and place of business in San Diego, California, has been
engaged in providing medical services.

--Brady (see above).

--Sharp Memorial Hospital hired Roel Construction, Inc. to be
the general contractor for the construction of a building addi-
tion. Roel Construction, in turn, subcontracted with Brady to
perform work on this project.

Westin Bonaventure
--Westin Bonaventure, a California corporation, with an office
and place of business in Los Angeles, California, has been en-
gaged in the operation of hotel properties.

--Precision, a California corporation, with an office and place
of business in Valencia, California, has been engaged as a gen-
eral contractor in the building and construction industry, spe-
cializing in hotel renovations.

--Westin Bonaventure engaged Precision to renovate guest
rooms at its hotel located in Los Angeles, California. Precision
performed this work in 2002.

Staybridge Carmel/Staybridge Sorrento
--InterContinental Hotels, a Delaware corporation, with an
office and place of business in San Diego, California, has been
engaged in the ownership and operation of hotel properties
including the Staybridge Suites Carmel Mountain Hotel and the
Staybridge Suites Sorrento Mesa, both located in San Diego,
California. InterContinental Hotels also franchises the “Stay-
bridge Suites” name to other persons engaged in the ownership
and operation of hotels.

--Twelfth and A Hotel Partners, a California partnership, with
an office and place of business in San Diego, California, has
been engaged in the operation of hotels.

--Brady (see above).

--12th & A Hotel Partners engaged Hensel Phelps Construction
Co. to construct a new Staybridge Suites hotel located on 12th
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1140
Avenue in San Diego, California. Hensel Phelps subcontracted
with Brady to work on the project.

Phoenix Target/Chandler Target
--Target Stores, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, is engaged in the
business of retail sales. Target Stores owns and operates stores
nationwide, including stores located in Chandler, Phoenix, and
Tempe, Arizona.

--Eliason & Knuth, a Nebraska corporation, with an office and
place of business in Phoenix, Arizona, has been engaged as a
contractor installing drywall, metal studs and interior fixtures in
commercial and residential construction projects at jobs located
in Arizona.

--Target Stores engaged Adolfson & Peterson, Inc. to perform
construction work at Target Stores located in Tempe and Chan-
dler, Arizona. Adolfson & Peterson, in turn, subcontracted
with Eliason & Knuth to perform work at both stores.

Holiday Inn Select
--North Face, an Arizona limited liability company, with an
office and place of business in Phoenix, Arizona, is engaged in
the ownership and operation of hotels.

--Eliason & Knuth (see above).

--North Face hired W.E. O’Neil Construction Company of
Arizona (O’Neil Construction) to construct a Holiday Inn hotel
in Chandler, Arizona. O’Neil Construction engaged Eliason &
Knuth to perform work at that job site.
APPENDIX B
The particular circumstances of the incidents were as follows:
(1) Grossmont Hospital
On or about March 12, 2003 and into September, 2003, the
Union displayed a banner on a public sidewalk outside of a
medical center parking structure located between the demon-
strators and the site of the new addition. The Stipulation of
Facts did not indicate precisely how far the banner was placed
from the entrances to the hospital, but that it was in “ . . . a busy
area with various destinations for both vehicles and pedestri-
ans.” The banner was displayed on the “inside” edge of the
sidewalk and faced the street, with the sidewalk lying between
the banner and the street. During this period, Brady was per-
forming work on the Grossmont Hospital project.
(2) Sharp Memorial Hospital
From March 14, 2003, until approximately the end of
August 2003, the Union established and maintained a
banner on a public sidewalk approximately 100 feet from
the entrances to the parking lot in front of the hospital.
The banner was displayed on the inside edge of the side-
walk and faced the street. For at least part of this period,
Brady was performing work at the Sharp Hospital pro-
ject.
(3) Westin Bonaventure
From March 19 until April 22, 2003, the Union displayed
two banners on street corners adjacent to the hotel. The ban-
ners were placed against the hotel building and faced the street,
with the sidewalk between the banner and the street. One ban-
ner was located 150 feet from the hotel’s garage entrance and
340 feet from the Flower Street entrance to the hotel, and the
other, 340 feet from the Figueroa Street entrance to the hotel.
Precision was not performing work at the hotel during the Un-
ions’ banner displays.
(4) Staybridge Carmel hotel
From April 30 through May 8, 2003 and then on weekdays
from May 23 into August, 2003, the Union displayed a banner
on a public sidewalk 100 feet west of the Staybridge Suites
Carmel Mountain Hotel in San Diego, California. The banner
was displayed on the inside edge of the sidewalk and faced the
street. Brady was performing work at the 12th Avenue hotel
for at least part of the period during which banners were dis-
played.
(5) Staybridge Sorrento
On weekdays from April 30 to May 8 and May 23 through
July 2003, the Union displayed a banner 200 feet west of an
entrance to a different San Diego hotel, the Staybridge Suites
Sorrento Mesa. The banner was displayed on the inside edge of
the sidewalk and faced the street. Brady was performing work
at the 12th Avenue hotel for at least part of this period.
(6) Phoenix Target
From May 20 into June, 2003, the Union displayed a
banner 700 feet from the entrance to the Phoenix Target
store. The banner was displayed on the inside edge of
the sidewalk and faced the street. Eliason and Knuth
never performed work on the Phoenix Target store, but
was working on the construction of the Tempe and
Chandler stores for at least part of the period during
which banner displays occurred.
(7) Holiday Inn Select
At times from June 23 into September, 2003, the Union dis-
played a banner 150 feet from the main entrance of the Airport
Holiday Inn Select in Phoenix, Arizona and 40 feet from the
entrance to its parking lot. The banner was displayed on the
inside edge of the sidewalk and faced the street. Eliason &
Knuth had never worked at the Airport Holiday Inn, but had
worked at the Chandler Holiday Inn during this period.
(8) Chandler Target Store
From June 25 until at least October 27, 2003 (the date the
Stipulation of Facts was filed with the Board), the Union dis-
played a banner one mile from the construction site of the
Chandler Target store. The banner was displayed on the out-
side edge of the sidewalk, with the banner almost directly next
to the street. The banner was positioned facing the street. Eli-
ason & Knuth performed work at either the Tempe or Chandler
Target stores for at least part of this period.
CARPENTERS LOCAL 1506 (AGC) 1141
APPENDIX C
The text of the handbill distributed by the Union at Gross-
mont Hospital.
SHAME ON GROSSMONT HOSPITAL
For Desecration of the American Way of Life
A rat is a contractor that does not pay all of its employees pre-
vailing wages, including either providing or making payments
for health care and pension benefits.

Shame on Grossmont Hospital for contributing to erosion of
area standards for San Diego carpenter craft workers. Carpen-
ters local [sic] 1506 has a labor dispute with E.F. Brady Com-
pany-San Diego that is a subcontractor on the Grossmont Hos-
pital project for Sundt General Contr. E.F. Brady does not
meet area labor standards, including providing or paying for
health care and pension to all its employees.

Carpenters Local 1506 objects to substandard wage employers
like E.F. Brady working in the community because the commu-
nity ends up paying the tab for employee health care and be-
cause low wages tend to lower general community standards,
thereby encouraging crime and other social ills.

Carpenters Local 1506 believes that the Grossmont Hospital has an
obligation to the community to see that area labor standards are met
when doing construction work at their offices. They should not be
allowed to insulate themselves behind “independent” contractors.

PLEASE TELL GROSSMONT HOSPITAL THAT YOU
WANT THEM TO DO ALL THEY CAN TO CHANGE THIS
SITUATION AND SEE THAT AREA LABOR STANDARDS
ARE MET FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK DONE AT THEIR
FACILITIES.

The members and families of Carpenters Local 1506 thank you
for your support. Call [number] for further information.

WE ARE NOT URGING ANY WORKER TO REFUSE TO
WORK NOR ARE WE URGING ANY SUPPLIER TO
REFUSE TO DELIVER GOODS.