Construction And General Laborers Local Union No. 304, Laborers International Union Of North America, Afl-Cio

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 12, 1986

282 N.L.R.B. 100 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Construction and General Laborers Local Union No.
304, Laborers International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO and Herring & Worley,
Inc. Case 32-CC-1024-1
12 November 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 19 August 1986 Administrative Law Judge
Richard J. Boyce issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
the Charging Party filed a cross-exception and a
brief in opposition to the Respondent's exceptions,
and the General Counsel filed a limited cross-ex-
ception and answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings'1 and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent , Construc-
tion and General Laborers Local Union No. 304,
Laborers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, Oakland , California , its officers , agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth
in the Order.
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
Elaine Climpson, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Paul D. Suptonk, Esq. (Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger &
Rosenfeld), of San Francisco, California, for the Re-
spondent.
Deborah E G. Wilder, Esq. (Thierman, Simpson & Cook),
of San Franciso, California, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD J. BOYCE, Administrative Law Judge. This
matter was tried in Oakland, California, on 5 and 6
March 1986-1 The charge was filed by Herring &
1 This manner of setting forth dates comports with the wishes of the
Board
Worley, Inc. (H & W), on 6 August 1985. On 11 Septem-
ber the Regional Director for Region 31 of the National
Labor Relations Board issued a complaint alleging that
Construction and General Laborers Local Union No.
304, Laborers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO (Respondent) had violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act)
since about 3 September 1985 by certain picketing activi-
ties, in furtherance of a dispute with H & W, at the
Morgan Building rehabilitation project (Project) on 16th
Street in Oakland.
On 23 September United States District Judge J. P.
Vukasin signed an order enjoining Respondent from
"picketing H & W at any entrance to the 16th Street job-
site other than that utilized by H & W, its employees and
suppliers," pending "final disposition" of the charge. On
31 October the Regional Director approved an agree-
ment settling the case, coincidentally withdrawing the
complaint of 11 September. On 27 November the Re-
gional Director set aside the settlement agreement, as-
sertmg that Respondent had "failed to discharge its obli-
gations" thereunder, and issued the present complaint.
The present complaint alleges 'that Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(b)(4)(i) and/or (ii)(B) from about 3 to 30
September 1985 by the aforementioned picketing,, and
that it additionally violated those provisions about 12, 13,
and 14 November 1985 by encouraging and inducing em-
ployees of William J. Sinay, Inc. (Sinay), to leave the
Project, "impliedly threatening them with unspecified
sanctions or reprisals" if they did not, in aid of its dispute
with H & W.2
As I conclude below, after an examination of relevant
evidence and controlling legal principles, Respondent
violated the Act substantially as alleged.
1. JURISDICTION
H & W, a California corporation, with officers in Red-
wood City and Oakland, performs assorted architectural,
engineering, and general contracting services in the con-
struction industry. It annually realizes revenues exceed-
ing $500,000, and causes materials worth over $50,000 to
be shipped across state line.
H & W inarguably is a "person" and an "employer"
within the pertinent sections of the Act, engaged in and
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7).
2 Sec 8(b) states in relevant part that
It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its
agents- . 4(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any indi-
vidual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an indus-
try affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the
course of his employment . . to perform any services, or (u) to
threaten, coerce, or restrain any [such] person . where in either
case an object thereof is . (B) forcing or requiring any person
.. to cease doing business with any other person . Provided,
That nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make
unlawful, where no otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or pri-
mary picketing
282 NLRB No. 14
LABORERS LOCAL 304 (HERRING & WORLEY) 101
II. RESPONDENT'S STATUS
Respondent concededly is a labor organization within
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
A. Facts3
The Project. H & W is the architect and engineer on
the Project. To enable it to reach appropriate structural
solutions, it conducted assorted test and measurements at
the site, starting in 1984 and continuing through July
1985. This entailed limited destruction of parts of the
building to permit scrutiny of the underlying structure.
This destruction was done by union laborers borrowed
by H & W from a subcontractor on a nearby project
where H & W was the general contractor.4
The general contractor on the Project, selected by the
project owner about 1 June 1985, is Anthony and Sons,
Inc.5 Subcontractors include Sinay, Bettencourt Plumb-
ing, Kares Construction, Red Top Electrical, and Sunset
Concrete. The owner is Morgan Investors, Ltd."
The reconstruction phase of the Project, pursuant to
plans formulated by H & W, began around 1 August
1985. H & W's only role in that phase has been 'one of
oversight, seeing that its plans are followed, answering
technical questions, and similar roles. Its representative
for this purpose is Rob Parker, construction supervisor,
who customarily visits the site three times a day. He gen-
erally deals with Peter Dufault, Anthony and Sons'
working foreman on the Project, but sometimes speaks
directly with representatives of the subcontractors as
well.
The Project had not been completed at the time of the
hearing.
The dispute. Respondent admittedly has had a "pri-
mary labor dispute" with H & W at the Project. The dis-
pute arose from Respondent's professed beliefs that H &
W is the general contractor and, therefore, that nonunion
laborers on the Project are its employees. H & W is
named as the general' contractor on the permits originally
issued for the Project it had obtained; and it had sought
to, serve in that capacity. Its president, Fred Herring,
credibly testified that the procurement of permits by it,
as architect and engineer, is "common practice"; as is its
being named the general contractor if one is yet to be
chosen.
Among the manifestations of the dispute were three
fill-the-blank form letters from Respondent to H & W,
one dated 1 July and two dated 31 July., The first assert-
ed that H & W, and the other two that Anthony and
Sons, a subcontractor for I-I & W, had "persons other
a The record contains no notable conflicts . None of Respondent's offi-
cials testified
4 H & W was engaged in four other projects in Oakland at the time as
general contractor as well as architect /engineer on the one from which
the laborers were shifted, and as architect/engineer on the other three
5 The contract between the owner and Anthony and Sons refers to the
owner as "owner-contractor" and to Anthony and Sons as the "subcon-
tractor." Labels aside , the weight of evidence indicates that Anthony and
Sons served as the general contractor.
6' Morgan Investors, Anthony and Sons, and each of the subcontractors
is a "person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce"
for purposes of Sec 8 (b)(4)(i) and (n)(B)
than Laborers performing Laborers' work," thereby de-
priving named members of work, and demanded that H
& W remit make-whole wage payments and fringe bene-
fit contributions for them. The letters concluded:
Failure to comply with this request permits the Dis-
trict Council [of Laborers,] to take appropriate eco-
nomic action against your organization for violation
of the hiring hall ... .
Herring responded to the 1 July letter by one dated 5
July, stating variously that Respondent apparently
"misunderstand[s] the business of' H & W; that H & W
does not "directly employ laborers," instead being an ar-
chitectural , engineering , and construction -management
firm; that it had "completed work as project engineers
and architects" on the Project and had "secured project
construction permits"; that the-owner had "already asked
[it] to manage parts of the demolition phase" of the
project, for which the owner had agreed to use union la-
borers "as the only labor employed"; that H & W be-
lieved the owner "will retain our services as construction
managers [i.e., general contractor] for the reconstruction
phase of the project"; and, should that develop, that H &
W would "recommend that any laborers on the job be
union men." H & W did not respond in kind to Respond-
ent's letters of 31 July.
Additionally, Respondent's president Frank Savoy en-
gaged H & , W's. Herring in conversation about the situa-
tion, both before and after the 31 July onset of picketing,
and Savoy and an assistant business agent , Bill Eddings,
raised the matter with H & W's Parker in July. The sev-
eral exchanges closely resembled one another. The union
representatives insisted in substance that H &; W was the
general contractor and was using nonunion laborers, de-
manded that they be removed, and held out the prospect
of picketing or continued picketing at this and other
Oakland projects with which H & W was associated
pending removal. The H & W officials generally replied
that it was not the general contractor, only the architect
and engineer, and consequently had no control over the
hiring practices of those actually doing the work of re-
construction.7
The picketing. The project site is about 80 feet wide
along 16th Street, an east-west thoroughfare. The front-
ing sidewalk is blocked off because of the construction,
with pedestrians being detoured through a covered walk-
way in the street for the easternmost 60 or so feet and
directed the remaining distance by lines painted on the
street." The site has two entry/exit points: through a
7 In an early conversation with Herring, Savoy cited the permits, call-
ing H & W the general ; in support of his insistence to that effect; and
Herring replied by describing the aforementioned "common practice"
concerning permits Herring also acknowledged , as he had in his letter of
5 July, that H & W hoped to become the general . Later, but before the
start of picketing , Herring told an incredulous Savoy that Anthony and
Sons had been chosen. During a meeting soon after the picketing onset,
Herring said that a contract existed between the owner and Anthony and
Sons, as the general contractor Officials of Respondent asked that he
provide one, and he said he would. The record leaves to surmise whether
he ever did.
a A diagram of the site gives its width as 60 feet , with the covered
walkway taking up 40 feet Parker testified that the walkway instead "is
probably 60 feet long "
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wooden door, 4 feet wide, that opens to and from the
sidewalk adjacent to the eastern end of the covered
walkway, and through a double gate made of chain-link
fencing and about 20 feet wide, opening to and from the
street to the west of the walkway. Deliveries since the
Project's inception have been through the chain-link
gate.
As mentioned, Respondent began to picket the Project
on 31 July.9 The signs then and since have read:
FRED HERRING
RAYMOND WORLEY
ROBERT PARDINI
UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE
ON
STRIKE
LABORERS
AFL-CIO
Herring, as noted, is H & W's president. Worley is its
secretary-treasurer, and Pardini is its vice president.
On 2 August, in response to the picketing, H & W's
Parker posted signs at the two entrances to the site. The
sign at the chain-link gate stated:
STOP-READ GATE 1
THIS GATE IS RESERVED FOR
PERSONNEL, VISITORS & SUPPLIERS
OF THE CONTRACTORS LISTED BELOW:
ANTHONY & SONS
HERRING & WORLEY, INC.
ALL OTHERS USE GATE #2
The sign at the wooden door stated:
STOP-READ GATE 2
THIS GATE MAY NOT BE USED BY
PERSONNEL, VISITORS OR SUPPLIERS
OF THE CONTRACTORS LISTED BELOW:
ANTHONY & SONS
HERRING & WORLEY, INC.
ALL OTHERS MUST USE THE GATE
This gate arrangement continued until 30 August,
when Parker deleted "Anthony & Sons" from both signs
and reversed the gates , placing the sign that had been at
the wooden door on the chain -link gate, and vice versa.
Picketing, meanwhile , continued in the immediate area
of the chain-link gate and all along the 16th Street side
of the Project until about 1 October . It since has been
confined to the area of the wooden door, presumably be-
cause of the district court injunction.
As earlier noted, the Regional Director approved a
settlement agreement on 31 October , coincidentally with-
drawing the original complaint.
9 Respondent began picketing two other of H & W's Oakland projects,
as well Savoy told Herring m one instance that "he would leave his
pickets there until he was satisfied that the 16th Street job had all union
personnel "
Respondent's alleged postsettlement misconduct. Sinay
started on the Project, cleaning and restoring the build-
ing's terra cotta exterior, in November 1985. On 12 No-
vember, its first or second day, one of its crew, Tony
Espinoza, was confronted by Respondent's Eddings out-
side the chain-link gate. Espinoza had just exited through
that gate. After ascertaining that Espinoza belonged to
Respondent, Eddings stated, "[D]on't you know there's a
picket line there and you're not supposed to cross the
picket?" Espinoza asked if he would "get a fine." Ed-
dings answered no, then asked if Espinoza intended to
continue working there. Espinoza said he did; that, as he
was not "facing a fine," he was not doing "anything
wrong." The encounter ended with Eddings saying,
"[Y]ou gotta do what you gotta do," and Espinoza re-
joining , "[Y]es, I gotta do what I gotta do, and I'm
going to go to work."
The following morning , 13 November, as Espinoza
and a coworker, Ralph Day, left through the chain-link
gate, they were met by Eddings and Respondent's
Savoy. Savoy exclaimed, "Do you know you're crossing
the picket line?" Day, a bricklayer, excused himself to
call his union's business agent; and Savoy, first verifying
Espinoza's membership in Respondent, again referred to
the picketing and asked if he intended to keep working.
Espinoza replied that ' he did, as he was not "doing
anything wrong." Savoy countered, "[H]ey, brother ...
you shouldn't go crossing the picket line," adding that,
while he was "not telling" Espinoza not to work, he
"wouldn't go to work there" himself. Espinoza repeated
that he was not "doing anything wrong"; that, as he was
"not getting fined," he was "going to go to work."
Savoy shot back that "nonunion scabs" were working
there, and that "it was people like [Espinoza] who [were]
going to break the union."
At length, Sinay's job superintendent, Joe Gregorich,
and a Sinay estimator named Bruce joined the parley. To
Gregorich's asking, "what the problem was," Savoy or
Eddings said, "pickets, [were] up on the job." Gregorich
asked the "specific reason" for the picketing. Savoy an-
swered that H & W was not "abiding by their agree-
ment." Gregorich pressed for Respondent's "exact griev-
ance," indicating that Sinay might honor the picket line
if the details were known. Savoy declined to particular-
ize.
Gregorich said H & W had " assured" Sinay that "the
union problems had been resolved" and that no "con-
flicts" would arise if Smay's employees used the chain-
link gate. Savoy retorted, "[A]ny time you cross a picket
line, it is not right." Gregorich then said that he would
"call the office" for guidance, and would "pull the men
off the job" in the meantime.
With that, Gregorich directed Espinoza and Day to
"shut the machines off and go to lunch," and they did.
Gregorich shortly conferred with the Sinay office,
being told to "go ahead and work." A Sinay crew ac-
cordingly worked that afternoon, but without Day, who
chose not to return until he could confer with his busi-
ness agent.' °
10 Day's place on the crew was taken by one Joe Lopez
LABORERS LOCAL 304 (HERRING & WORLEY) 103
About quitting time the next afternoon, 14 November,
Eddings intercepted Espinoza and a coworker named
Delatorre across -the street from the chain-link gate. Ed-
dings remarked, "[S]o you decided to go back to work,"
then asked Espinoza to produce his membership card.
Espinoza complied, asking as he did if he would "get
fined" for remaining on the job. Eddings answered, as
before, that he would not, appending, "I can't tell you
what to do other than to go by your conscience and do
what you feel is right." Eddings cautioned, however,
"[R]ememeber, this is going to hurt you in the long run."
Gregorich, who since had joined the group, interjected
that, if Sinay "didn't man the jobsite," a nonunion con-
tractor would "finish the work," which would "just be
defeating [Respondent's] purpose." Eddings, plainly
angry, turned and left.11
B. Conclusions
Respondent 's postsettlement conduct. To summarize, on
12 November Eddings called Sinay employee Espinoza's
attention to the picketing and told him he was not "sup-
posed to cross the picket"; on 13 November Savoy asked
Espinoza and his Sinay coworker Day if they knew they
were crossing the picket line. He told Espinoza that he
"shouldn 't go crossing the picket line" and that he
"wouldn't go to work there" himself, and proclaimed to
Sinay's Gregorich , "Any time you cross a picket line, it
is not right." On 14 November Eddings, advised Espin-
oza to "go by [his] own conscience" and to do what he
felt was "right" with regard to the picketing , only to
add, "[R]emember , this is going to hurt you in the long
run."
These several remarks to Sinay employees "would rea-
sonably be understood by the employees as a signal or
request to engage in a work stoppage against their own
employer." 12 Each of them therefore constituted induce-
ment or encouragement within subsection (i) of Section
8(b)(4);13 and Savoy's words on 13 November by
prompting Gregorich to "pull the men off the job" pend-
ing guidance from the Sinay office , and by causing Day
not to return to the Project that afternoon , threatened,
coerced , or restrained within (ii), as well.14
Further, these comments manifestly had as an object
"forcing or requiring" Sinay, a neutral to the dispute be-
tween Respondent and H & W, to cease doing business
with the Project's owner and its general contractor, to
cause them in turn to cease doing business with H & W.
They therefore ran afoul of clause (B) of Section
8(b)(4).15 Consequently, Savoy's remarks on 13 Novem-
her violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B), and Eddings'
on 12 and 14 November violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B). 16
The picketing. The violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) just, described occurred after the Regional Direc-
tor's 31' October approval of the agreement settling the
complaint of 11 September, which complaint alleged that
Respondent's picketing at the Project since 3 September
violated those same provisions. The Regional Director
reasonably concluded, therefore, that Respondent had
"failed to discharge its obligations" under the settlement
agreement, and acted appropriately in setting it aside and
alleging in the present complaint that Respondent's pick-
eting, from 3 to 30 September, violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B).17
Respondent picketed the Project throughout Septem-
ber in disregard of the gate signs , even though, from 30
August on, they unambiguously restricted the ingress
and egress of H & W personnel to the wooden door and
that of all others to the chain-link gate. The inference,
reinforced by Respondent's unlawful November conduct,
thus is unavoidable that an object of the September pick-
eting was the improper one of enmeshing neutrals-the
owner, the general contractor, and the various subcon-
tractors-in a dispute not their own. The conclusion fol-
lows that this picketing violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B).18
Rejected as without evidentiary support is Respond-
ent's contention that it was misled because-11 & VV "en-
gaged in chicanery calculated to confuse Respondent
about the appropriate situs of the picketing." Also reject-
ed as devoid of factual underpinning is Respondent's ar-
gument that confining the picketing to the wooden door
"unduly restricted Respondent's statutory rights" by
making the picketing "invisible from and to the public
way."1 s
11 Eddings also asked to see Delatorre's card during this encounter
and if he had,been "cleared" to the job by Respondent. As Delatorre
produced his card, Gregorich interceded for him, Delatorre having mini-
mal English-language skills . Gregorich stated, that, while Delatorre had
not been cleared for the Project, be had worked steadily for Sinay for 3
years and was just filling in" for "a day or two," his regular project in
Yosemite Park,having been "snowed out."
12 Los Angeles Building Trades Council (Sierra South), 215 NLRB 288,
290 (1974)
13 "The words 'induce or encourage ' are broad enough to include in
them every form of influence and persuasion ." Electrical Workers IBEW
Local 501 v. NLRB, 341 U.S 694, 701 (1951). See also Operating Engi-
neers Local 12 (Associated Engineers), 270 NLRB 1172, 1175 (1984); Sheet
Metal Workers, Local 80 (Ciamillo Heating), 268 NLRB 4, 7 (1983); Car-
penters Local 1622 (Wood & Associates), 262 NLRB 1211, 1219 fn 28
(1982); Laborers Local 676 (E B. Roberts Construction), 232 NLRB 388,
389 (1977), Los Angeles Building Trades Council (Sierra South), supra, 215
NLRB at 290; Carpenters Local 235, 174 NLRB 996, 997 (1969); Plumbers
Local 370 (Baughan Plumbing), 157 NLRB 20, 26 (1966).
14 Operating Engineers Local 12 (Associated Engineers), supra, 270
NLRB at 1175; Laborers Local 676 (E. B. Roberts Construction), supra,
232 NLRB at' 390 fn. 8; Los Angeles Building Trades Council (Sierra
South), supra, 215 NLRB at 290; Plumbers Local 370 (Baughan Plumbing),
supra, 157 NLRB at 21.
15 See generally the cases cited above in fn 13. That Sinay may not
have had a direct business relationship with the owner, or that Anthony
and Sons may, not have had one with H & W, does not , as a legal propo-
sition, militate against a cease-doing -business object. Salem Building
Trades Council (Cascade Employers Assn.), 163 NLRB 33, 35 (1967').
16 That Savoy told Espinoza he was not telling him nol to work is not
exonerative. Nor is Eddings' telling Espinoza he would not be fined, that
"you gotta do what you gotta do," and that he could not tell him what
to do other than to go by, his conscience Laborers Local 676 (E. B. Rob-
erts Construction), supra, 232 NLRB at 389, 391 fn. 9.
17 Chattanooga Glass Co, 265 NLRB 691 (1982); Sieves Sash & Door
Co., 164 NLRB 468, 472-473 (1967).
is Electrical Workers IBEW Local 323 (Renel Construction), 2644 NLRB
623, 624-625 (1983); Carpenters Local 1622 (Specialty Building), 262
NLRB 1244, 1246 (1982); Carpenters Local 1622 (Robert Wood ,& Asso-
ciates), supra, 262 NLRB at 1211; Carpenters Local 470 (Mueller-Ander-
son), 224 NLRB 315, 316-317 (1976); Sailors Union (Moore Dry Dock), 92
NLRB 547 (1950).
,19 The case cited by Respondent in support of this argument , Electrical
Workers IBEW Local 453 (Southern Sun Electric), 237 NLRB 829 (1978),
Continued
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rejected, finally, is Respondent's assertion that the
role of H & W's Parker vis-a-vis Anthony and Sons and
its subcontractors negates their neutrality, limiting pick-
eting at their gate as well as that used by H & W. The
Board time and again has declined to make such a deter-
mination in situations such as this.20
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of
the Act in furtherance of a dispute with H & W, by pick-
eting the Project during September 1985 in disregard of
the reserved-gate system; and on 13 November 1985,
when the remarks of its representative, Savoy, effective-
ly induced and encouraged employees of Sinay to stop
working.
Respondent additionally violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B),
when, in the context of the same dispute, its representa-
tive, Eddings, made certain remarks to Sinay employees
on 12 and 14 November to induce or encourage them to
stop working.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed21
that person to cease doing business with Herring &
Worley, Inc.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the purposes of the Act.
(a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."22 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 32, after being signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of the notice to the
Regional Director for Region 32 for posting by Herring
& Worley, Anthony and Sons, Sinay, Bettencourt
Plumbing, Kares Construction, Red Top Electrical, and
Sunset Concrete, should they wish to do so, at all loca-
tions where notices to employees customarily are posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
ORDER
The Respondent, Construction and' General Laborers
Local Union No. 304, ' Laborers International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, Oakland, California, its offi-
cers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed
by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry af-
fecting commerce to engage in a strike or refusal, in the
course of his employment, to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, ar-
ticles, materials, or commodities, or to refuse to perform
any other services, where an object thereof is to force or
require that person to cease doing business with Herring
& Worley, Inc.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining any person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, where an object thereof is to force or to require
involved a primary gate located in an alley and perhaps not visible from
the street serving the premises The Board stated at 237 NLRB 830 that
limiting picketing to that gate "would unjustly impair the effectiveness of
Respondent's lawful picketing to convey its message to all within
the legitimate, direct appeal of its picket sign " The wooden door in the
present case suffers no comparable isolation . See Electrical "Workers
IBEW Local 323 (Rene! Construction), supra, 264 NLRB at 625.
20 E g, Sacramento Area District Council of Carpenters (Malek Con-
struction), 244 NLRB 890 (1979); Carpenters District Council of Milwaukee
County (Westa Construction), 224 NLRB 1071 (1976), Carpenters Local
470 (Mueller-Anderson), supra at fn. 18, Building Trades Council of New
Orleans (Markwell & Hartz), 155 NLRB 319 (1965) See also NLRB v.
Denver Building Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675, 689-690 (1951)
21 H & W to the contrary, Respondent's misconduct herein can be
adequately' remedied without a broad remedial Order. All outstanding
motions inconsistent with this recommended Order are denied. In the
event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec . 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
22 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT in any manner prohibited by Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act induce
or encourage any individual employed by any person en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
to engage in a strike or refusal, in the course of his em-
ployment, to use, manufacture, process, transport, or oth-
erwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials,
or commodities, or to refuse to perform any other serv-
ices, where an object thereof is to force or require that
person to cease doing business with Herring & Worley,
Inc.
WE WILL NOT in any manner prohibited by Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act threat-
en, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object
LABORERS LOCAL 304 (HERRING & WORLEY)
thereof is to force or require that person to cease. doing
business with Herring & Worley, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS
LOCAL UNION No. 304, LABORERS INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
105