Hearn Construction

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 10, 2009

20-CA-033534 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 10, 2009)

JD(SF)–04–09
Fairfield, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
HEARN CONSTRUCTION
and Case 20-CA-33534
CARPENTERS’ UNION LOCAL 180,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
AND JOINERS OF AMERICA
Kathleen C. Schneider and Jason Wong of
San Francisco, California, for General Counsel
Dennis B. Cook of Sacramento, California,
for Respondent
Matthew J. Gauger of Sacramento, California,
for the Charging Party
David Alderson of Fairfield, California for
the City of Fairfield, California
DECISION
Mary Miller Cracraft, Administrative Law Judge: Hearing in this case was held in San
Francisco, California, on December 9, 2008, pursuant to the complaint and notice of hearing
issued by the Regional Director for Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board on October
31, 2007. The complaint is based on a charge filed on August 10, 2007, by Carpenters’ Union
Local 180, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (the Union). The complaint
alleges that Hearn Construction1 (Respondent) caused the arrest of two representatives of the
Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.2
All parties were provided full opportunity to appear, to introduce relevant evidence, to
examine and cross examine witnesses, and to argue the merits of their respective positions. On
the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses,3 and after
considering the briefs filed by counsels for the General Counsel, the Union, and the
Respondent, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

1 The name of Respondent appears as corrected at the hearing.
2 29 U.S.C. §158(a)(1).
3 Credibility resolutions have been made based upon a review of the entire record and all
exhibits in this proceeding. Witness demeanor and inherent probability of the testimony have
been utilized to assess credibility. Testimony contrary to my findings has been discredited on
some occasions because it was in conflict with credited testimony or documents or because it
was inherently incredible and unworthy of belief.
JD(SF)–04–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Findings of Fact
Respondent, a general contractor in the construction industry, is an employer engaged in
interstate commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Respondent admits and I find that at all material times it has been a general contractor in
the construction industry performing both residential and commercial construction. During a
relevant 12-month period, Respondent admits that it provided services valued in excess of
$50,000 to enterprises located within the State of California and that these enterprises each met
the Board’s standards for the assertion of jurisdiction on the basis of direct involvement in
interstate commerce. Thus, Respondent admits that it meets the Board’s standards for assertion
of jurisdiction on the basis of indirect involvement in interstate commerce. Based upon these
facts, Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
The complaint alleges that the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act. Respondent admits this allegation and I so find.
In May 2007,4 Respondent began work at the southwest corner of the intersection of Mangels
Boulevard and Business Center Drive in Fairfield, California, constructing an administrative
headquarters facility for NorthBay Healthcare.
In January 2007, Respondent entered into construction contracts for a headquarters
building for NorthBay Healthcare at the southwest corner of Mangels Boulevard and Business
Center Drive (the job site) in Fairfield, California. The job site encompassed both public and
private land. Pursuant to Section 16.4.3 of the Fairfield City Code, Respondent received an
encroachment permit in February5 to perform some of the headquarters work within the public
right-of-way. The public right-of-way work included grading, landscaping, irrigation and sidewalk
installation. 6
Respondent began work in May. Respondent enclosed both the public and private land
by erecting a chain-link fence around the job site.7 The chain-link fence along the north and
west sides of the project followed Mangels Boulevard as it curved toward the intersection with
Business Center Drive. The chain-link fence on Mangels Boulevard abutted the back edge of

4 All dates are in 2007 unless otherwise specified.
5 The encroachment permit was issued in February 2007. Although the construction
completion estimate was February 2008, the encroachment permit was issued only until
expiration of Respondent’s insurance, June 15, 2007. This was a standard City practice when
the insurance would expire prior to the anticipated completion of the project. The City did this to
ensure that it would receive an updated insurance policy. Upon receipt of such a policy, the
City’s practice was to extend the encroachment permit through the anticipated completion date.
6 All permits granted subject to 16.4.3 are subject to the right of way of any person entitled
to use the public right of way for any purpose for which it may lawfully be used.
7 The encroachment permit requires placement of construction barricades prior to
commencement of work and to remain in place until construction is completed.
JD(SF)–04–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
the curb, i.e., the portion of the curb furthest from the street. Thus, inside the Mangels
Boulevard chain-link fence, approximately the first 25 feet of property abutting the fence was
public property. Immediately outside the fence were the curb and then a lane of traffic.
Respondent was granted an easement onto property just south of the job site.
In addition to the job site property, Respondent utilized a temporary construction
easement onto the adjoining property immediately south of the job site (the easement area).8
This easement included a right to access for construction vehicles and other reasonable access
in connection with construction of the headquarters facility. The property on which the easement
area was located was owned by NorthBay Healthcare Group. The property was enclosed by a
barbed-wire fence and was separated from the job site by the chain-link construction fence.
The Union was involved in an area standards dispute with Sommerkal Construction, Inc., a non-
union concrete subcontractor at the job site.
Union field representative Mike Johnson first visited the job site in May. He spoke with
Sommerkal foreman John (last name unknown) and Sommerkal nonunion carpenter Andrew
Schmidt. In a conversation with Schmidt, Johnson ascertained Schmidt’s wages and benefits
and concluded that they did not meet the area standards negotiated by the Union. By letter
dated June 22, the Union wrote to Sommerkal that it understood that Sommerkal did not pay the
wages and fringe benefits established by the Union in the geographic area in which Sommerkal
was working thus undermining the conditions established by the Union for its members. The
letter disclaimed any interest in representation. Additionally, the letter requested that Sommerkal
furnish any information contrary to the Union’s understanding that Sommerkal did not pay area
standard wages and benefits. The Union received no response from Sommerkal.
On June 29, the Union began picketing at the job site.
After ascertaining that Sommerkal was at the job site, the Union began picketing on
June 29. Picket captain Mike Johnson, Union employee Trent Schager, and several out-of-work
Union carpenters carried signs declaring that Sommerkal did not pay area standards. There was
only one gate at the job site when picketing commenced. The picketers walked back and forth at
that gate, an approximately 16 to 20 foot opening in the chain-link fence running along Mangels
Boulevard. Two sections of the chain-link fence swung inward at a 90 degree angle to Mangels
Boulevard in order to create the gate opening. The picketers walked along the curb between the
gates inside the chain-link fence but staying on the public right-of-way portion of the project, i.e.,
the first 25 feet off of Mangels Boulevard.
On June 29, Respondent created a “dual gate” system at the job site designating Gate 1 for
Sommerkal and other non-union contractors.
By letter of June 29, Respondent announced that Gate 1 was for the exclusive use of
employees, subcontractors, and material suppliers of non-union contractors including
Sommerkal. Respondent announced establishment of Gate 2 a short distance from Gate 1 for
the exclusive use of employees and materials suppliers of its union contractor. At the time the
letter was faxed to the Union on June 29, picket captain Mike Johnson was unable to locate a

8 The easement was entered into between NorthBay Healthcare Group, the property owner,
and NexCore Management, Inc., general partner of NorthBay Headquarters, LP, on behalf of
NorthBay Healthcare Corporation as tenant of the headquarters building.
JD(SF)–04–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
second gate. However, as he was leaving for the day, he saw a gate company arrive and install
a second gate. The following morning, there were signs at each of the two gates. Gate 1, the
gate where the Union picketed on June 29, was designated for Sommerkal and other non-union
contractors. The new gate, designated Gate 2, was for use of the one union contractor, who
was not yet on the job.
From June 29 until July 18, the Union picketed without incident at Gate 1.
The Union’s practice was to arrive at the job site around 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. and remain in
or around their cars. When Sommerkal arrived at the job site, the Union began picketing at Gate
1. When trucks entered and exited the gate, the picketers stood against the opened gates. The
record reflects no impact on ingress or egress of vehicles. Although the picketers were
technically inside the chain-link fence, they remained on the public right-of-way portion of the job
site while at Gate 1.
Prior to July 18, the Union picketed without incident in the easement area.
On two occasions prior to July 18, some of the picketers went onto the easement area to
follow Sommerkal work. For instance, when a concrete pour occurred, some of the Sommerkal
trucks entered the job site from Business Center Drive. On another occasion, Sommerkal
employees entered through an alternate opening from Business Center Drive. The pickets went
to these locations and picketed while Sommerkal was present. After use of these alternate
openings in the chain-link fence, Respondent sent follow-up letters re-establishing the “dual
gate” system as set forth in the original June 29 letter.
On July 18, the picketers engaged in area standards picketing in the easement area.
On July 18, around 10 a.m., the picketers saw a lumber delivery truck arrive in the
easement area south of the job site. An opening in the chain-link fence between the job site and
the easement area had been created in this area for a Sommerkal employee to unload the
lumber with a fork lift. Trent Schager and another picketer went to this area and picketed for
about one hour while the lumber was unloaded.
Around 11 a.m., a White Cap construction supply truck arrived in the easement area at
another opening in the chain-link fence, this one near the job site construction trailer. The same
Sommerkal employee reported to the White Cap truck with a forklift and began unloading the
supplies. The pickets at the lumber delivery easement area moved to the White Cap supply
truck position in the easement area. About one hour later, the easement area picketers returned
to Gate 1. At both of these locations in the easement area, the picketers were on private
property.
On July 18, the City of Fairfield Police Department was summoned to the job site.
Upon arriving at the job site on July 18, project manager James Clarke observed Union
picketers at Gate 1 as well as two picketers in the easement area where Sommerkal was
unloading materials. Clarke was at the site to hold a weekly progress meeting at the
construction trailer. As he began the progress meeting, the picketers in the easement area
moved near the construction trailer.
Also attending the progress meeting was Ted Maestes, the designated project
representative of NexCore Management, Inc., general partner of NorthBay Headquarters, LP. At
the request of Maestes, Clarke asked the picketers in the easement area to return to Gate 1.
JD(SF)–04–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
When these picketers refused to leave the easement area, Clarke asked Johnson to have the
picketers in the easement area return to Gate 1. Johnson declined, averring that the Union
could picket wherever Sommerkal was present. At this point, Maestes contacted the City of
Fairfield Police Department.
When the police arrived, they asked Johnson to remove the pickets from all locations
except Gate 1. Johnson refused claiming a right to picket wherever Sommerkal was present.
However, after Johnson spoke with the police, all picketers returned to Gate 1. At this point,
Maestes and Clarke left Gate 1 and joined construction workers and others who were gathered
for a barbecue to mark a construction milestone.
Although the police initially told the picketers to remain at Gate 1, eventually the police
attempted, under threat of arrest, to relocate the picketers to a sidewalk at the intersection of
Mangels Boulevard and Business Center Drive.
After Clarke and Maestes left Gate 1, the police requested that, for their own safety, the
picketers relocate from Gate 1 to a sidewalk area at the intersection of Mangels Boulevard and
Business Center Drive. The picketers continued to claim a right to picket at Gate 1, the
designated Sommerkal gate. Finally, a police officer told picketing captain Johnson that if the
picketers did not leave Gate 1, they would be arrested. At this point, Johnson directed all
picketers to leave Gate 1. Johnson remained, however, with fellow picketer Trent Schager.
After Clarke agreed to sign a citizen’s arrest form, the picketers were arrested at Gate 1 while
on the public right-of-way.
At the request of the police, Clarke agreed to sign a citizen’s arrest form. Thereafter,
Johnson and Schager, the two remaining picketers, were arrested at Gate 1 while on the public
right-of-way. The picketers were taken to the police department, cited and released.
Johnson’s citation indicates that he was arrested for violation of California Penal Code
602.1, refusal to leave private property, and for violation of a City ordinance which requires a
permit for use of a bullhorn. Schager was arrested for violation of California Penal Code 602.1,
refusal to leave private property.
California Penal Code 602.1 provides in relevant part,
(a) Any person who intentionally interferes with any lawful business or occupation
carried on by the owner or agent of a business establishment open to the public,
by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on business, or their
customers, and who refuses to leave the premises of the business establishment
after being requested to leave by the owner or the owner’s agent, or by a peace
officer acting at the request of the owner or owner’s agent, is guilty of a
misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to 90 days, or
by a fine of up to four hundred dollars ($400), or by both that imprisonment and
fine.
An exception to code 602.1 states as follows:
(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:
(1) Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are permitted to be
carried out on the property by state or federal law.
JD(SF)–04–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
At the time of the arrests, Respondent’s encroachment permit was technically expired. The
permit was extended at a later date.
Respondent’s original encroachment permit expired on June 15. There is no dispute that
Respondent’s encroachment permit had not been renewed as of July 18. At a later date,
Respondent produced the appropriate proof of insurance renewal and the permit was extended
to June 15, 2008.
The Solano County District Attorney did not prosecute Johnson
On August 16, Johnson appeared in court and was told that all charges against him had
been dropped. He received a “Notice of Intent not to Prosecute” stating that no formal charges
would be brought against him for the charge relating to violation of Section 602.1 of the Penal
Code. The reason given on the notice was “Civil remedies should be sought.” There is no
evidence whether Schager was prosecuted or not. At the time of the hearing, Johnson did not
know Schager’s whereabouts.
Conclusions of Law
Johnson and Schager were arrested on public property at Gate 1.
At the time of their arrest, Johnson and Schager were standing on the public right-of-way
within Gate 1. They were therefore on public property at the time of their arrest. Although
Schager was in the easement area earlier when the police were initially contacted, he left the
easement area and returned to Gate 1 about one hour prior to being arrested.
Johnson and Schager were engaged in lawful Section 7 activity at the time of the arrest.
At the time of their arrest, Johnson and Schager were engaged in lawful area standards
picketing. Thus, the Union investigated wages and benefits paid by Sommerkal, determined that
these wages and benefits did not meet the area standards paid to Union-represented
employees, asked Sommerkal to refute this assertion if it was in error and, receiving no
response, picketed with signs stating that Sommerkal did not pay area standards. Picketing for
protection of area standards is clearly lawful Section 7 activity. See, e.g., Corporate Interiors,
340 NLRB 732, 745-747 (2003), citing Bristol Farms, 311 NLRB 437 (1993).
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by causing the arrest of union representatives who were
engaged in lawful Section 7 activity on public property.
Where public property is concerned, “[I]t is beyond question that an employer’s
exclusion of union representatives . . . violates Section 8(a)(1), so long as the
union representatives are engaged in activity protected by Section 7 . . . .”
Roger D. Hughes Drywall, 344 NLRB 413, 414-415 (2005), citing Bristol Farms, 311 NLRB 437
(1993); see also, Gainesville Mfg. Co., 271 NLRB 1186 (1984). Based upon this authority, I find
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) in causing the arrest of lawful area standards picketers
Johnson and Schager. Although the complaint also alleges a threat of arrest, the only evidence
of such a threat was a statement made by the police. There is no evidence that a representative
of Respondent made such a threat. The allegation regarding a threat of arrest is dismissed.
JD(SF)–04–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
Assuming, arguendo, that Schager was arrested for trespass on private property, Respondent
has failed to demonstrate a sufficient property interest to foreclose violation of the Act.
Counsel for Respondent argues that the picketers were arrested for trespass on private
property. Of course, this argument could only apply to Schager. There is no dispute that
Johnson remained on public property at all times. In any event, Respondent asserts that the
appropriate analysis is set forth in Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527 (1992). Lechmere
provides that if there are reasonable alternative means of communication between a union and
its audience, exclusion of a nonemployee union organizer from private property does not violate
Section 8(a)(1) of Act if the respondent had a right under applicable state law to prevent
trespass.
Citing Sears, Roebuck & Co v. San Diego District Council of Carpenters, 25 Cal.3d. 317,
158 Ca. Rptr. 370 (1979) and Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. NLRB, 42 Ca. 4th 840, 69 Cal. Rptr.
3d 288 (2007), Respondent acknowledges that the California Penal Code exempts certain
lawful union activity from prosecution for trespass. Respondent argues nevertheless that these
cases are distinguishable because Respondent’s job site, unlike a shopping center, was not
open to the public. Respondent notes that no commercial, retail or public forum activities
occurred on the job site. Thus, Respondent argues that the Union could effectively
communicate its message without trespassing.
Finally, Respondent distinguishes In re Catalano, 29 Cal.3d 1, 171 Cal. Rptr. 667 (1981).
In that case, the Supreme Court of California held that union representatives who entered a job
site to conduct a safety inspection and prepare a steward’s report were engaged in lawful union
activity which did not warrant prosecution for trespass. Respondent notes that the Union herein
was not on the job site for either a safety inspection or preparation of a steward’s report.
I reject Respondent’s arguments. First, as I have found above, Johnson and Schager
were arrested while on the public right-of-way. There is absolutely no evidence that Johnson
entered upon the adjacent private property. Rather, Johnson was always present at the
assigned picketing position, Gate 1, well within the public right-of-way. Assuming, however, for
the sake of argument, that Schager was arrested for his presence on private property, I
nevertheless conclude that his arrest would violate Section 8(a)(1).
Lechmere9 holds that nonemployee union organizers may not trespass on private
property in order to organize employees unless there are no reasonable alternative means of
communicating with the employees. Lechmere applies in the context of area standards
picketing. Leslie Homes, Inc., 316 NLRB 123, 127-129 (1995). Given my finding that the Union
was engaged in lawful area standards picketing, pursuant to Lechmere, Respondent must
demonstrate a private property interest pursuant to state law sufficient to warrant arrest for
trespass. See, Bristol Farms, 311 NLRB 437, 438 n. 6 (1993); Indio Grocery Outlet, 323 NLRB
1138, 1142 (1997), enfd. sub nom. NLRB v. Calkins, 187 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 1999).
Johnson and Schager were cited with violation of California Penal Code 602.1 with the
notation, “Refused to leave private property.” However, this section of the penal code
specifically exempts persons engaged in labor union activities which are permitted by the
National Labor Relations Act. Because Johnson and Schager’s actions fall within that
exemption, Respondent has failed to demonstrate a property interest sufficient to warrant arrest
for trespass on private property.

9 Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, supra, 502 U.S. at 535.
JD(SF)–04–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
Further, I note that Respondent did not attempt to exert any public safety concerns by
instituting designated area or peak traffic restrictions in order to avoid disruption of normal
business operations. See, e.g., Needletrades Employees (“UNITE”) v. Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, 65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 838 (Ca. Ct. App. 1997), cited with approval in Glendale
Associates, Ltd., 335 NLRB 27, 28 (2001), enfd. 347 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2003).
Additionally, I reject Respondent’s argument that Sears and Fashion Valley are
distinguishable. Although Respondent is correct that both Sears and Fashion Valley arise in
public shopping areas, the penal code exemption from prosecution for lawful union activity
pertains to all trespass, not just trespass in public shopping areas. See, e.g., In re Zerbe, 388
P.2d 182 (S. Ct. Cal 1964)(union official who picketed on right-of-way of railroad serving
employer’s plant was engaged in lawful labor activities and not subject to conviction for willful
trespass under California Penal Code).
Finally, I reject as misplaced Respondent’s argument that because its job site was not
open to the public there were reasonable alternative means for communicating outside the
fence. The penal code exemption controls whether Respondent may demonstrate a sufficient
property interest to warrant arrest for trespass. Respondent’s argument – that the Union could
effectively communicate its message without coming inside the fenced job site – presumes
demonstration of a sufficient property interest to warrant application of Lechmere. The penal
code exemption precludes such a showing. Therefore, Lechmere’s reasonable alternative
means analysis is not reached.
Although it may be possible to analyze this case pursuant to the right to seek redress of
grievances, I decline General Counsel’s invitation to do so.
General Counsel asserts that BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516 (2002),
reaffirming the holding in Bill Johnson’s Restaurant v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983), provides the
framework for analysis. Thus, counsel asserts that the arrest violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
because it was objectively baseless (because the district attorney did not prosecute) as well as
retaliatory. Counsel notes that retaliation is evidenced by Clarke’s admission that the Union had
a right to picket at Gate 1, Clarke’s testimony that the only reason he signed the citizen’s arrest
form was because the pickets showed disrespect for the police by refusing to move to safer
locations at the request of the police, and Clarke’s admission that, to be quite honest, he would
rather not have any picketers at all. Counsel for Charging Party agrees with this rationale.
Because I have found that Johnson and Schager were arrested on public property while
engaged in lawful area standards picketing, it is not necessary to address these issues.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Consistent with Board authority, I recommend that
Respondent be ordered to make the Union whole with respect to the litigation costs arising from
Johnson and Schager’s arrest and that Respondent be ordered to notify the appropriate law
enforcement and court authorities of the illegality of the arrest and to seek the expungement of
associated records. Roger D. Hughes Drywall, 344 NLRB 413 (2005) and cases cited therein as
follows: Schear’s Food Center, 318 NLRB 261, 267 (1994); K Mart Corp., 313 NLRB 50, 58
(1993); Baptist Memorial Hospital, 229 NLRB 45, 46 (1977), aff’d. 568 F.2d 1 (6th Cir. 1977).
See also, Petrochem Insulation, Inc., 240 F.3d 26, 35 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
JD(SF)–04–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
ORDER
Respondent Hearn Construction, Vacaville, California, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall cease and desist from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act by causing the arrest of picketers
lawfully engaged in area standards picketing as employees or representatives of Carpenters’
Union Local 180, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America or in any like or
related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
Respondent shall take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Notify the Solano County District Attorney’s Office and appropriate court
authorities in writing, with a copy to the Union, that the Board has determined
that Johnson and Schager’s arrest on July 18, 2007, violated the Act; request in
writing, with a copy to the Union, that the District Attorney’s Office and the court
remove any and all records of that unlawful arrest; and make Carpenters’ Union
Local 180, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America whole, with
interest, for all reasonable legal fees and expenses incurred as a result of the
arrest.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Vacaville, California, office,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”10 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(c) Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that,
during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current
employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since July 18, 2007.
(d) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the notice for posting
by the Union, if it so chooses, at all places where it customarily posts notices to
its members and employees.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.

10 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 National 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.”
JD(SF)–04–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 10, 2009
____________________
Mary Miller Cracraft
Administrative Law Judge
JD(SF)–04–09
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
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 Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act by causing the arrest of picketers lawfully engaged in area
standards picketing as employees or representatives of Carpenters’ Union Local 180, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL notify the Solano County District Attorney’s Office and appropriate court authorities in
writing, with a copy to the Union, that the Board has determined that Johnson’s and Schager’s
arrests on July 18, 2007, violated the Act.
WE WILL request in writing, with a copy to the Union, that the Solano County District Attorney’s
Office and the court remove any and all records of that unlawful arrest.
WE WILL make Carpenters’ Union Local 180, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America whole, with interest, for all reasonable legal fees and expenses incurred as a result of
the arrests.
HEARN CONSTRUCTION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
JD(SF)–04–09
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
901 Market Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, California 94103-1735
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
415-356-5130.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 415-356-5139.