Mid-Atlantic Regional Council

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 2, 2006

05-CC-001289 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 2, 2006)

JD–16–06
Cockeysville, MD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES

MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL COUNCIL
OF CARPENTERS

and Case No. 5-CC-1289

GOODELL, DEVRIES, LEECH &
DANN, LLP

and

STARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
INC.

James C. Panousos, esq.,
for the General Counsel
Eric Hemmendinger, esq.,
of Baltimore, Maryland
for the Charging Party
Daniel M. Shanley, esq.,
of Los Angeles, California and
Brian F. Quinn, esq., of
Washington, D.C.
for the Respondent

DECISION

Statement of the Case

Eric M. Fine, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Baltimore, Maryland, on
December 21, 2005. The charge was filed on August 15, 2005, by Goodell, DeVries, Leech &
Dann, LLP (referred to as Goodell or the Charging Party) against the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Council of Carpenters (referred to as the Union, the Council, or as Respondent).1 The
complaint issued on November 17, alleging the Union engaged in picketing and fraudulent
unprotected speech since August 9, in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act by attempting
to cause Goodell and Constantine Commercial Construction, Inc., (Constantine), and other
persons engaged in commerce to cease doing business with Starkey Construction Co., Inc.
(Starkey).

On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, and the Union, I make the following

1 All dates are in 2005 unless otherwise indicated.

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
2
Findings of Fact

I. Jurisdiction

The parties stipulated that: Goodell, a Maryland limited liability partnership jointly owned
by David W. Allen, Richard M. Barnes, Bonnie J. Beavan, Thomas J. Cullen, Jr., E. Charles
Dann, Jr., Donald L. DeVries, Jr., Charles P. Goodell, Jr., Thomas M. Goss, Amy B. Heinrich,
Jeffrey J. Hines, Kelly Hughes-Iverson, Kamil Ismail, Sidney G. Leech, Michael L. Lisak, Craig
B. Merkle, Thomas V. Monahan, Jr., Susan T. Preston, Thomas J. S. Waxter, III, and Linda S.
Woolf, is engaged in providing legal representation and legal services at its Baltimore, Maryland
facility from where during the past 12 months it derived gross revenues in excess of $250,000,
and performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in states other than the State of Maryland.
Starkey, a corporation, with a facility in Cockeysville, Maryland, has been engaged as a drywall
contractor in the construction industry, providing commercial building construction services, and
during the past 12 months has purchased and received at its Cockeysville, Maryland facility
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the state of Maryland.
Constantine, a corporation with a Timonium, Maryland facility has been engaged as a general
contractor in the construction industry, providing commercial building construction services, and
during the past 12 months has purchased and received at its Timonium, Maryland facility goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Maryland. At all material
times, Goodell, Starkey, and Constantine are each employers engaged in commerce, and
persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 2(1), 2(2), 2(6) and 2(7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices

The information set forth immediately below was derived from the parties’ written
stipulation:

Beginning in January 2005, Goodell sought to expand its offices located at the
Alex Brown Building, One South Street, Baltimore, Maryland. Goodell contracted with
Constantine to perform the construction. Constantine subcontracted the drywall work for
the construction to Starkey. The Union was not recognized or certified as the collective
bargaining representative of any employees employed by Constantine and/or Starkey,
nor has the Union demanded recognition as the collective bargaining representative or
sought to organize any employee employed by Constantine and/or Starkey. The Union
does not dispute the wages paid by Constantine or Goodell to their employees;
therefore, the Union has no primary dispute with Constantine or Goodell. The Union’s
primary labor dispute is with Starkey. The Union does dispute the wages paid by
Starkey to its employees who are or were working on Goodell’s project.
On or about August 9, 2005, and continuing to the present, with the exception of
about one week in November 2005, the Union displayed at the job site, a banner
approximately 20 feet by 4 feet in size. The banner is white, with “Shame On Goodell
DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP” appearing in capital letters approximately eleven (11)
inches high in black. At both ends of the banner, the words “LABOR DISPUTE”
appeared in red capital letters approximately eight (8) inches high. Since on or about
August 9, 2005, the banner was displayed on a public sidewalk at South Street, directly
outside the Alex Brown Building approximately 25 to 30 feet north from the four main
entrances to the building. Other than the South Street entrances, public access to the
Alex Brown Building and Goodell’s offices may be gained only by the Alex Brown

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
3

Building’s parking garage on Commerce Street and a service entrance also located on
Commerce Street to the north of the parking garage.

The banner was displayed at the jobsite on weekdays, generally five times a
week, from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The banner was accompanied by no
less than two but no more than four individuals who were either members of local unions
affiliated with the Union or employed by the Union. The banner was printed only on the
front side. At all material times, the banner displayed by the Union was held stationary
and upright by the banner bearers in a straight line, with the bottom of the banner
touching the ground. In each instance, the banner was erected at the beginning of the
day and it did not move, but remained stationary at the particular place on location, until
it was taken down at the end of the day. The Union’s banner holders also had handbills
available, although they have not sought out pedestrians to whom to distribute these
handbills. One handbill was available until on or about October 28, 2005, and the other
handbill was available after that date.2 The General Counsel does not contend the
factual representations made in the handbills are false. The General Counsel does not
contend the handbills or their distribution violates the Act. The banners were
accompanied by normally three of the Union’s agents, banner holders, who remained at
all times during the display. The banner holders held up the banner and gave flyers to
any inquiring member of the public. The banner holders did not engage in chanting,
yelling, marching, or similar conduct. At no material time did the Union’s representatives
physically block the ingress or egress of any person wishing to enter or leave the Alex
Brown Building. The Union admits the placement of the banner was selected to
maximize exposure to the general public and all persons, including passing motorists
and pedestrians, who might be in the area, and the location on which the banner was
erected was a major approach way to Goodell for persons doing business with Goodell.

On or about October 25, 2005, the Union’s counsel was notified by Goodell by
letter that Starkey completed its work at Goodell on October 19, 2005. The Union
continued its banner activity and its hand bill activity as described above after October
25, 2005.

There were two witnesses who testified during this proceeding. They were Thomas
Goss, an attorney and a partner in the Goodell law firm, and George Eisner, the Union’s director
of organizing.3 Eisner credibly testified the Union began picketing activity against Starkey on
May 26 at the One South Street location and this picketing ended on July 15. The Union then
began picketing at the same site against Wilhelm Commercial Builders, Incorporated (Wilhelm)
on July 18 and that the picketing against Wilhelm ended on August 5. Wilhelm was not involved
in the construction work for Goodell. Rather, Wilhelm performed work for another tenant in the
building. The picketers wore signs about three feet by four feet in size made of yellow
cardboard. The Starkey sign read, “Starkey Construction Company, Incorporated does not pay
the area standard wages and benefits, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters." The
sign also contained smaller print stating, "We have a labor dispute with the above-named
company. We are appealing only for the public, the consumer. We are not seeking to induce
any person to cease work or refuse to make delivery." The Wilhelm picket sign was identical to
2 The parties submitted both handbills into evidence as joint exhibits.
3 Upon observation of their demeanor, the content of their testimony, and the record as a
whole, I have credited Goss and Eisner’s testimony to the extent discussed herein. Goss’
recollection was not clear as to dates as that of Eisner’s, and I have credited Eisner over Goss
as to the sequence of events, as Eisner’s recollection was clear and specific.

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
4

the Starkey sign, except that the company name on the sign was Wilhelm Commercial Builders,
Incorporated. Eisner testified the banner concerning Goodell went up on August 9 at the One
South Street site. He credibly testified the Goodell banner was not displayed at the site at the
same time there was picketing activity there against Starkey or Wilhelm.

Goss credibly testified the Union’s picketing activity against Starkey at One South Street
involved the use of a large inflatable rat, about a story and a half tall, sitting in the back of a
large pickup truck. There were also people walking in an oval line near the door of the building.
The line was about 30 feet in length. There was a person in the middle chanting and then there
was a response. The words were, “Who's the rat? Starkey. Where's the rat? South Street.”
The chanting was repeated, and the words would change on occasion. Goss credibly testified
he remembered the name of the Goodell law firm being used in a chant on one occasion. Goss
testified there were around 20 people in the picket line, but the number varied depending on the
weather. Goss testified there was some picketing activity every day during the time period of
the picketing, although there were some days when the rat was not there. Goss testified the
picketers against Starkey were there from around 9:30 a.m. and were gone by 3 p.m. Goss
credibly testified while the Union was engaged in this activity there was room for only single file
pedestrian traffic for people walking northbound on South Street. He also testified there was
only room for one person at a time to get into the building.

As set forth above, the picketing against Starkey and Wilhelm ceased on August 5, and
on August 9, the Union posted the banner, as described above, against Goodell close to the
main entrance of the building where Goodell has its offices. Goss testified the Goodell banner
was about one block from the Baltimore City Courthouse (the Courthouse) where the Goodell
law firm practices and members of the firm try cases on a regular basis in front of juries. He
testified the banner was visible to pedestrians, cars and buses. Goss testified there is a
restaurant in the building where the law firm has its offices. Goss credibly testified he has
observed judges regularly eating there, and people with juror tags eating there. Goss testified
that at a trial the jurors are introduced to the attorneys by their name and the name of the firm.
Goss testified he is very concerned about the banner and the impact it might have on jurors. He
testified the banner could reflect against the attorney and could be damaging to his clients.
Goss credibly testified one of his partners completed a 2 and ½ week trial at the Courthouse
during the last month prior to the unfair labor practice trial.4
Continued
4 Goss testified the last case Goss had that went to trial at the Courthouse was in 2003.
However, Goss testified he was currently involved at the Courthouse in cases where plaintiffs
are alleging injury due to asbestos. Goss represents the defendants in these cases who, at
various times, are contractors, suppliers, and manufacturers. Goss testified a number of
claimants are workers in the construction industry, including some members of the Carpenters’
Union. Goss testified he has been involved in early stages of this litigation at the Courthouse
since the banner was posted, but that no jury has been selected at the time of the unfair labor
practice trial. Upon the Union’s objection, I excluded Goss’ testimony about the asbestos
litigation from the record at the unfair labor practice trial, but allowed Goss to testify to the above
by way of question and answer offer of proof. I now reverse my ruling and have admitted this
credited testimony as part of the record. In this regard, the Union’s banner activity against
Goodell is open ended as it was on going at the time of the unfair labor practice trial on
December 21, although the parties stipulated that Starkey, with whom the Union had its primary
dispute, had left the site in mid-October. Moreover, the potential damage to a secondary
employer is one element in assessing whether a Union’s conduct is coercive within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(4) of the act. See, NLRB v. Retail Clerks Local 1001, 441 U.S. 607, 611 (1980).
I have credited Goss’ testimony that he was concerned about the impact the banner would have

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
5
_________________________

Eisner testified the bannering activity against Goodell was continuing as of December
21, the day of the unfair labor practice trial. Eisner testified the Union chose the language on
the Goodell banner based on advice of counsel in that the use of the language had been
approved in numerous decisions before administrative law judges, and in some federal court
cases.5 He testified the banner is not self standing. Eisner testified he thought building
management would remove the banner if the Union left it unattended and the banner has never
been left unattended by union personnel.

Eisner testified the purpose of the banner is to inform the public that Goodell chose
contractors who did not pay area standard wages and fringes on Goodell’s construction project.
He testified the Union’s goal once the public learned this information was for the public to call
Goodell and ask them to correct the problem as requested in the Union’s handbill. He admitted
there was no way for members of the public to receive this message from looking at the banner
itself, and they could only learn it by requesting a copy of the Union’s handbill from one of the
banner holders. Eisner at first denied it was the Union’s intention to put pressure on Goodell.
He then admitted the Union wanted the law firm to change its behavior by hiring area standard
contractors. He testified he did not care whether or not they were union contractors as long as
they paid area standards wages and fringes. Eisner testified Goodell can hire Starkey if Starkey
paid area standards wages. Eisner testified if a contractor does not pay area standard wages
the Union would not want them to work in the building or for Goodell.

A. Positions of the parties
The General Counsel argues the Union has engaged in two different types of coercive
conduct prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). First, the Union’s posting of a large banner
accompanied by several individuals near the entrance to Goodell’s premises creates a symbolic
and confrontational barrier tantamount to a picket line. The General Counsel argues the
Union’s conduct is traditional or signal picketing. The General Counsel also argues the Union is
using unprotected speech on the banner by seeking a consumer boycott of the neutral Goodell.
The General Counsel argues the Union’s posting is coercive on two grounds: (1) it was made
with reckless disregard for the truth so as to mislead the public into believing the Union had a
labor dispute with Goodell over the treatment of Goodell’s own employees; and (2) it constitutes
defamation by implication. The General Counsel argues the Union's conduct is not free speech
protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Union argues finding a violation of the Act would constitute a violation of the Union’s
First Amendment rights. The Union asserts five Article III courts and six administrative law
judges have rejected the General Counsel’s “constitutionally insensitive theories.” The Union
argues these decisions including one of the ninth circuit hold that interpreting Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) to prohibit the Union’s activity here would pose a significant risk of infringing First
Amendment rights, and special deference by the Board should be given to the ninth circuit and
district judge’s rulings since these cases involve First Amendment questions. The Union argues
Respondent’s display of its banner does not rise to the level of a threat, coercion, or restraint
necessary for a finding of an unlawful secondary boycott. The Union contends with no
patrolling, ambulatory picketing, blocking, violence, confrontation, intimidation, chanting,
shouting or other mis-conduct to weigh against the Union’s free speech rights there is no
on this litigation if it went to trial.
5 Prior litigation of bannering activities by Carpenters Union affiliates will be discussed in the
Analysis section of this decision.

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
6

support under controlling Supreme Court precedent to find the Union’s conduct violative of the
Act. The Union states the banner is posted on a public sidewalk. It is held up by two to four
banner holders as it cannot be left unattended because it is not self standing and would be
confiscated by local authorities or the property owner. The Union contends neither the banner
nor the handbills advocate a consumer boycott against the Goodell. The Union argues the
banner is not signal picketing because it does not constitute a signal for any other union action.
The Union argues the General Counsel improperly focuses on the language of the banner,
noting that the term “shameful” does not constitute a threat. The Union argues the
concentration on the language on the banner, as opposed to the conduct of the Union,
constitutes a collision with the First Amendment. It is asserted the term “labor dispute” on the
banner is truthful, and has been found to be such by reviewing authorities since secondary
employers are parties to a labor dispute as defined in Section 2(9) of the Act.

B. Analysis

1. Prior court cases and the decisions of other
administrative law judges

As set forth above, one court of appeals, and four district courts have addressed the
Carpenters Unions’ bannering activities in Section 10(l) injunctive proceedings, and several
other administrative law judges have rendered decisions in unfair labor practice trials on this
issue, which are currently on appeal before the Board.6 In Kentov v. Sheet Metal Workers
International Association Local 15, 418 F.3d 1259, 1262-63 (2005), a case where the General
Counsel was seeking Section 10(l) injunctive relief, and the union there was defending by
asserting its First Amendment rights, the court stated:

Section 10(l) of the NLRB authorizes district courts to grant temporary injunctive relief
pending the Board’s resolution of certain unfair labor practice charges, such as
secondary boycotts, which are likely to have a disruptive effect upon the flow of
commerce. 29 U.S.C Section 160(l); Dowd v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 975 F.2d 779,
782, 782-83 (11th) Cir. 1991). A Section 10(l) proceeding is ancillary to the Board’s
6 See, Overstreet v. Carpenters Local Union No. 1506, 409 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2005); Gold
v. Mid Atlantic Regional council of Carpenters, 407 F. Supp. 2d 719 (D.MD. 2005); Benson v.
UBCJA, Locals 184 and 1498, 337 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (D. Utah 2004); Overstreet v. Carpenters
Local Union No. 1506, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 19854 (S.D. CA, 2003); and Kohn v. Southwest
Regional Council of Carpenters, 289 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (C.D. Ca. 2003) denying the General
Counsel’s requests for Section 10(l) injunctive relief in Carpenters bannering activity cases.
Gold v. Mid Atlantic Regional council of Carpenters, supra, involved a request before a district
judge for injunctive relief for the Union’s activity that is the subject of the current unfair labor
practice trial. The Union also cites six administrative law judge decisions that have dismissed
complaints concerning Carpenters Union bannering activity. They are: Southwest Regional
Counsel of Carpenters, et al., JD(SF)-14-04, 2004, (February 18, 2004); Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters, JD(SF)-76-04 (November 12, 2004); Carpenters Local No. 1506, JD SF-
01-05 (January 6, 2005); United Brotherhood of Carpenters Locals 184 and 1498, JD (SF)-02-
05 (January 13, 2005); Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, JD(SF)-29-05 (April 5,
2005); and Southwest Regional council of Carpenters, JD(SF)-59-05 (August 22, 2005). Of
note, two other administrative law judges have found the Carpenters’ bannering activity to be
violative of the Act. See Local Union No. 1827 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, et al., JD(SF)-30-03, (May 9, 2003); and Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters,
JD(SF)-24-04 (April 2, 2004). The Board has not yet ruled on these cases.

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
7
administrative proceedings, and the ultimate determination of the merits of the unfair
labor practice case is reserved for the Board subject to review by the courts of appeals
under Section 10(e) and (f) of the NLRA. See Dowd, 975 F.2d 779.

Thus, while a request for injunction in this case under Section 10(l) of the Act was denied by a
district judge, that decision is ancillary to the underlying unfair labor practice litigation and is not
binding on me. See also, NLRB v. Denver Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675, 681-
682 (1951). Similarly, the decisions in other 10(l) proceedings and by other administrative law
judges are not binding on me as I am required to follow Board law. See, Ford Motor Co., 230
NLRB 716, 718, fn. 12 (1977), enfd. 571 F.2d 993 (7 Cir. 1978), affd. 441 U.S. 488 (1979). th

2. The alleged unfair labor practices

Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act provides, in relevant part:

(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents –
(4)(ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is –
(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting or
otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or
to cease doing business with any other person …: Provided, That nothing contained in
this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any
primary strike or primary picketing; . . .
Provided further, That for the purposes of this paragraph (4) only, nothing contained in
such paragraph shall be construed to prohibit publicity, other than picketing, for the
purpose of truthfully advising the public, including consumers and members of a labor
organization, that a product or products are produced by an employer with whom the
labor organization has a primary dispute and are distributed by another employer, as
long as such publicity does not have an effect of inducing any individual employed by
any person other than the primary employer in the course of his employment to refuse to
pick up, deliver, or transport any goods, or not to perform any services, at the
establishment of the employer engaged in such distribution.

It is stated in Service Employees Local 87 (Trinity Maintenance), 312 NLRB 715, 742
(1993), enfd. 103 F.3d 139 (9th Cir. 1996), in reference to Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act that:

As the Supreme Court has explained, the above-quoted provision of the Act reflects ‘the
dual congressional objectives of preserving the right of labor organizations to bring
pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes and of shielding
unoffending employers and others from pressure in controversies not their own.’ NLRB
v. Denver Building Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675, 692 (1951). Thus, while Section
8(b)(4)(B) of the Act leaves unfettered a labor organization’s traditional right to engage in
direct action against an employer, with which it is engaged in a primary labor dispute,
including the right to induce the primary employer’s employees to engage in a strike or
refusal to handle goods, the provision’s more ‘narrowly focused’ purpose is to ‘restrict
the area of industrial conflict insofar as this could be achieved by prohibiting the most
obvious, widespread, and … dangerous practice of unions to widen that conflict’ and
coerce neutral employers not concerned with the primary dispute. Carpenters Local
Angeles County District Council Local 1976 v. NLRB, 357 U.S. 93, 100 (1958).

It was further noted in Service Employees Local 87 (Trinity Maintenance), supra at 743 that, “it
is no less a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act for a labor organization to disrupt the

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
8

business of an unoffending neutral employer, which has no business relationship with the
primary employer, in the hope that said neutral will be pressured into interceding in a labor
dispute between the labor organization and the primary employer. Iron Workers Local 272
(Miller & Solomon), 195 NLRB 1063 (1972); Hearst Corp., supra at 322.”7

In Mine Workers (New Beckley Mining), 304 NLRB 71, 73 (1991), enfd. 977 F.2d 1470
(D.C. Cir. 1992), the Board set forth the following principles:

It is well settled that picketing (or other coercive conduct) violates Section 8(b)(4) if the
object of it is to exert improper influence on a neutral party. NLRB v. Denver Building
Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675, 689 (1951), Electrical Workers IBEW Local 501 v. NLRB,
756 F.2d 888, 892 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Although our inquiry must be based on the intent,
rather than on the effects of the union’s conduct, International Rice Milling Co. v. NLRB,
341 U.S. 665, 672 (1951), the union’s intent is measured as much by the necessary and
foreseeable consequences of its conduct as by its stated objective. Longshoreman ILA
Local 799 (Allied) International, 257 NLRB 1075 (1981). Thus we look to the ‘totality of
the circumstances’ to determine whether the Union’s conduct demonstrates an unlawful
purpose. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 501, supra at 893.

It was stated in Mississippi Gulf Coast Building, 222 NLRB 649, 654 (1976), enfd. 542 F.2d 573
(5th Cir. 1976), concerning common situs picketing, that:

In a case commonly referred to as the Moore Dry Dock case,8 the Board set forth certain
standards for the determination of presumptively valid picketing against primary
employers as follows:

[I]n the kind of situation that exists in this case, we believe that picketing of the
premises of a secondary employer is primary if it meets the following conditions:
(a) The picketing is strictly limited to times when the situs of dispute is located on
the secondary employer's premises; (b) At the same time of the picketing the
primary employer is engaged in its normal business at the situs; (c) The picketing
is limited to the places reasonably close to the location of the situs; and (d) The
picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the primary employer.
Conversely the absence of the above criteria or conditions reflect invalid
picketing.

It is clear in the instant case that the Union’s posting of a large banner near the entrance
to the offices of Goodell was for the purpose of causing Goodell to cease doing business with
Starkey, or at a minimum of causing Goodell to intervene on the Union’s behalf in the Union’s
dispute with Starkey. See Service Employees Service Employees Local 87 (Trinity
Maintenance), supra at 743. First, the Union continued the display of its banner long after the
Union was informed that Starkey ceased performing work at the site. Moreover, the Union’s
banner failed to disclose the Union’s dispute was with Starkey. In fact, the Union did not even
mention Starkey’s name on its 20 by 4 foot banner, where only Goodell’s name appears.9
Continued
7 See, Los Angeles Newspaper Guild Local 69 (Hearst Corp.), 185 U.S. 303 (1970).
8 See, Sailors Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547 (1950).
9 The Union’s handbills, available at the site are further evidence of its purpose of causing
Goodell to cease doing business or at a minimum intervene in the Union’s dispute with Starkey.
The Union objects in the handbills to Starkey’s alleged failure to meet area standards in wages
and benefits. The handbills solicit the public to call Goodell and tell them to do all they can to

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
9
_________________________
Moreover, union official Eisner admitted the purpose of the banner was to inform the public that
Goodell chose contractors who did not pay area standards and fringes. Eisner admitted the
Union wanted Goodell to change its behavior by hiring only area standards contractors, of which
Starkey was not one. Thus, the purpose of the Union’s bannering activity was to put pressure
on secondary employer Goodell to cease doing business with primary Starkey, or to exert
pressure on Starkey to alter its wage and benefit policies. The Union’s purpose was one
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act in that it sought to broaden its dispute with Starkey
by placing pressure on secondary employer Goodell.

The question then becomes was the Union’s bannering activity picketing or other
coercive conduct proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. In NLRB v. Fruit & Vegetables
Packers, Local 760 (Tree Fruits), 377 U.S. 58 (1964), the issue before the Court was whether
unions violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act when they limited their secondary picketing of
retail stores to an appeal to customers of the stores not to buy the products of certain firms
against which one of the unions was on strike. The unions used picketers wearing placards
who also distributed handbills at Safeway stores asking customers not to purchase a certain
brand of apples, which the Court noted was only one of numerous food products sold in the
stores. The pickets were given instructions that they were forbidden from asking customers not
to patronize the stores. In refusing to find a violation of the Act, the Court stated:

There is nothing in the legislative history prior to the convening of the Conference
Committee which shows any congressional concern with consumer picketing beyond that
with the ‘isolated evil’ of its use to cut off the business of a secondary employer as a means
of forcing him to stop doing business with the primary employer. When Congress meant to
bar picketing per se, it made its meaning clear; for example, Section 8(b)(7) makes it an
unfair labor practice ‘to picket or cause to be picketed * * * any employer * * *” In contrast,
the prohibition of Section 8(b)(4) is keyed to the coercive nature of the conduct, whether it
be picketing or otherwise. 377 U.S. at 68.
* * *
When consumer picketing is employed only to persuade customers not to buy the struck
product, the union’s appeal is closely confined to the primary dispute. The site of the appeal
is expanded to include the premises of the secondary employer, but if the appeal succeeds,
the secondary employer’s purchases from the struck firms are decreased only because the
public has diminished its purchases of the struck product. On the other hand, when
consumer picketing is employed to persuade customers not to trade at all with the
secondary employer, the latter stops buying the struck product, not because of a falling
demand, but in response to pressure designed to inflict injury on his business generally. In
such case the union does more than merely follow the struck product; it creates a separate
dispute with the struck employer. 377 U.S. at 72.

In NLRB v. Retail Clerks Local 1001, 447 U.S. 607, 611 (1980), a union reached an
impasse during contract negotiations with Safeco, a title insurance company. The Union then
picketed five title companies that derived 90 percent of their income by distributing Safeco’s
change the situation. Thus, the handbills show it was the Union’s intent to pressure Goodell to
cease doing business with Starkey as long as Starkey failed to meet the Union’s demands. I do
not find the fact that the handbill mentioned Starkey by name determinative of the impact of the
Union’s banner which did not mention Starkey. By the terms of the parties’ stipulation the
message on the banner was clearly designed to reach a much larger segment of the public than
that of the Union’s handbills, which were only distributed to passersby upon their specified
requests made to union agents.

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
10

products. In concluding the union’s picketing violated Section 8(b)(4) of the Act, the Court
plurality stated, “the Union’s secondary appeal against the central product sold by the title
companies in this case is reasonably calculated to induce customers not to patronize the neutral
parties at all.” Id. at 615. The Court plurality found the picketing violated the Act because the
picketing if successful presented the title companies with a choice between survival and
severance of their ties with Safeco thereby violating the statutory ban on the coercion of
neutrals with the object of forcing them to cease doing business with the primary employer. In
addressing the first amendment issue, the Court plurality stated:

Although the Court recognized in Tree Fruits that the Constitution might not permit ‘a
broad ban against peaceful picketing,’ the Court left no doubt that Congress may prohibit
secondary picketing calculated to ‘to persuade the customers of the secondary employer
to cease trading with him in order to force him to cease dealing with, or to put pressure
upon the primary employer.’ 377 U.S., at 63. Such picketing spreads labor discord by
coercing a neutral party to join the fray. In Electrical Workers v. NLRB, 341 U.S. 694,
705 (1951), this Court expressly held that a prohibition on ‘picketing in furtherance of
(such) unlawful objectives’ did not offend the First Amendment.10 See American Radio
Assn. v. Mobile S.S. Assn., 419 U.S. 215, 229-231 (1974); Teamsters v. Vogt, Inc., 354
U.S. 284 (1957). We perceive no reason to depart from that well-established
understanding. As applied to picketing that predictably encourages consumers to
boycott a secondary business, Sec. 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) imposes no impermissible restrictions
upon constitutionally protected speech. Id. at 616.

Justice Stevens wrote a concurring opinion in NLRB v. Retail Clerks Local 1001, supra at 618-
619, finding the picketing violated Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. Justice Stevens stated:

I have little difficulty in concluding that the restriction at issue in this case is
constitutional. Like so many other kinds of expression, picketing is a mixture of conduct
and communication. In the labor context, it is the conduct element rather than the
particular idea being expressed that often provides the most persuasive deterrent to third
persons about to enter a business establishment. In his concurring opinion in Bakery
Drivers v. Wohl, 315 U.S. 769, 776-777, Mr. Justice Douglas stated:

‘Picketing by an organized group is more than free speech, since it involves
patrol of a particular locality and since the very presence of a picket line may
induce action of one kind or another, quite irrespective of the nature of the ideas
which are being disseminated. Hence those aspects of picketing make it the
subject of restrictive regulation.’

Indeed, no doubt the principal reason why handbills containing the same message are
so much less effective than labor picketing is that the former depend entirely on the
persuasive force of the idea.

10 In Electrical Workers v. NLRB, supra, there was a dispute where a contractor used a non
union electrical subcontractor on a job. The electrical workers union only used a single picket,
who carried a placard which read, “This job is unfair to organized labor: I.B.E.W. 501 A.F. L.”
The picketing caused carpenters union members to walk off the job, and the general contractor
replaced the non-union sub on the job. The Court held the Union’s conduct of peaceful
picketing induced a secondary boycott in violation of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act, and was not
protected speech under Section 8(c) of the Act.

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
11
The statutory ban in this case affects only that aspect of the union’s efforts to
communicate its views that calls for an automatic response to a signal, rather than a
reasoned response to an idea. And the restriction on picketing is limited in geographical
scope to sites of neutrals in the labor dispute. Because I believe that such restrictions
on conduct are sufficiently justified by the purpose to avoid embroiling neutrals in a third
party’s labor dispute, I agree that the statute is consistent with the First Amendment.

Thus, Justice Stevens pointed out in his concurrence in a case involving consumer picketing
that picketing sends a signal for an automatic response to customers or the general public, as
well as to union members who may be working at a common site.

In Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. V. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485
U.S. 568, 580 (1988), the union had a primary dispute with a construction contractor hired by
one of the tenants in a mall to build a department store. The union distributed handbills at the
mall informing customers that one of the stores in the mall was being built by contractors who
paid their employees substandard wages and benefits and asking customers not to shop at any
of the stores in the mall until the mall’s owner promised all construction at the mall would be
done by contractors who pay their employees fair wages and fringe benefits. In finding the
union’s activity to be lawful, the Court noted, “The handbills involved here truthfully revealed the
existence of a labor dispute and urged potential customers of the mall to follow a wholly legal
course of action, namely, not to patronize the retailers doing business in the mall. The
handbilling was peaceful. No picketing or patrolling was involved.” Id. at 575-576. The Court
held, “The case turns on whether handbilling such as involved here must be held to ‘threaten,
coerce, or restrain any person’ to cease doing business with another, within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).” Id. at 578. The Court stated:

But more than mere persuasion is necessary to prove a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii(B):
that section requires a showing of threats, coercion, or restraints. Those words, we have
said, are ‘nonspecific, indeed vague,’ and should be interpreted with ‘caution’ and not
given a ‘broad sweep,‘ Drivers, supra 362 U.S., at 290, 80 S.Ct., at 715;” and in applying
Section 8(b)(1)(A) they were not to be construed to reach peaceful recognitional
picketing. Neither is there any necessity to construe such language to reach the
handbills involved in this case. There is no suggestion that the leaflets had any coercive
effect on customers of the mall. There was no violence, picketing, or patrolling and only
an attempt to persuade customers not to shop in the mall. 485 U.S. at 578.

The Court in DeBartolo distinguished NLRB v. Retail Store Employees, supra, stating that the
picketing there threatened the neutral with ruin or substantial loss. 485 U.S. at 579. The Court
ended the DeBartolo decision with the following pronouncement seemingly limiting the breadth
of its decision to the type of handbilling in that case. The Court stated:

At the very least, the Kennedy-Goldwater colloquy falls far short of revealing a clear
intent that all nonpicketing appeals to customers urging a secondary boycott were unfair
practices unless protected by the express words of the proviso. Nor does that exchange
together with the other bits of legislative history relied on by the Board rise to that level.
In our view, interpreting Section 8(b)(4) as not reaching the handbilling involved in this
case is not foreclosed either by the language of the section or its legislative history. That
construction makes unnecessary passing on the serious constitutional questions that
would be raised by the Board’s understanding of the statute. 458 U.S. at 588.

Thus, in NLRB v. Fruit & Vegetables Packers, Local 760, (Tree Fruits), 377 U.S. 58, 68
(1964), the Court stated conduct proscribed by Section 8(b)(4) of the Act is not limited to

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
12
picketing. The Court stated “the prohibition of Section 8(b)(4) is keyed to the coercive nature of
the conduct, whether it be picketing or otherwise.” There the Court found consumer picketing at
secondary employer to convince customers not to buy a struck product is closely confined to the
primary dispute. In refusing to find a violation of the Act the Court distinguished the situation
where picketing was designed to persuade customers not to trade at all with the secondary
employer, finding that in that instance the union does more than follow the struck product but
creates a separate dispute. Similarly, in NLRB v. Retail Clerks Local 1001, 441 U.S. 607
(1980), the Court found consumer picketing designed to cause customers not to patronize a
secondary employer at all to be violative of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. While this case involved
consumer picketing, Justice Stevens, in a well cited concurring opinion, stated, “The statutory
ban in this case affects only that aspect of the union’s efforts to communicate its views that calls
for an automatic response to a signal, rather than a reasoned response to an idea. And the
restriction on picketing is limited in geographical scope to sites of neutrals in the labor dispute.”
Id. at 618-619. As Justice Stevens recognized, the presence of a picket line, sends of signal not
just to union members working at a jobsite, but to consumers in general, who may or may not be
union members, relatives of union members, or who just may have an aversion to crossing a
picket line regardless of the message being disseminated by those on the line. Justice Stevens
also pointed out that it is the location of the picketing at a secondary employer’s site that is
important. It is also not necessarily the fear of confrontation, but the symbol of what a picket
line represents that can be found to be coercive under Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. For, in
Electrical Workers v. NLRB, 341 U.S. 694 (1951), a union’s use of a single picketer was found
to have violated Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. In Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast
Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988), the Court held handbilling at a mall in that
instance did not violate Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. However, the Court noted the handbills
informed customers that one of the stores in the mall was being built by contractors who paid
substandard wages and benefits, and asked customers not to shop at the mall until the mall’s
owner promised all construction would be done by contractors who paid their employees fair
wages and benefits. In finding the conduct was not violative of the Act, the Court stated, “The
handbills involved here truthfully revealed the existence of a labor dispute…”.

In Sheet Metal Workers Local 15 (Brandon Regional Medical Center), 346 NLRB No. 22,
slip op. at 2 (2006), the Board found the Respondent union violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by
holding a mock funeral procession at a jobsite. The Board majority stated:

We agree with our concurring colleague as to the reasons why this conduct was
picketing. However, to the extent that she implies that picketing requires a physical or
symbolic barrier, we do not necessarily agree. Since the funeral procession was such a
barrier, we need not pass on whether such a barrier is a sine qua non of picketing. It
may be that other conduct, short of a barrier, can be ‘conduct’ that is picketing or at least
‘restraint or coercion’ within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).

In fact, the Board and courts have long held that conduct other than picketing constitutes
coercive conduct within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. In Kentov v. Sheet Metal
Workers International Association Local 15, 418 F.3d 1259, 1264 (11th Cir. 2005), fn. 6, the
court stated:

Coercion under Section 8(b)(4)(ii) broadly includes “nonjudicial acts of a compelling or
restraining nature, applied by way of concerted self-help consisting of a strike, picketing,
or other economic retaliation and pressure in the background of a labor dispute.”
Carpenter Kentucky District Council (Wehr Constructors), 308 NLRB 1129, 1130, fn. 2
(1992), (quoting Sheet Metal Workers Local 48 v. Hardy Corp., 332 F.2d 682, 686 (5th
Cir. 1964)).

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
13

The ninth circuit applied similar principles in Associated General Contractors v NLRB, 514 F.2d
433, 438 (9th Cir. 1975), stating:

We believe that when Congress used “coerce” in Section 8(b)(4)(B) it did not intend to
proscribe only strikes or picketing, but intended to reach any form of economic pressure
of a compelling or restraining nature. (Citations omitted.)

In Wehr Constructors, supra at 1130, the filing of internal union disciplinary charges was found
to be coercive conduct. In Local 32B-32J, Service Employees Intern. Union, AFL-CIO v.
N.L.R.B., 68 F.3d 490, (D.C. Cir. 1995), the court enforced a Board order finding that a union’s
demand for arbitration was coercive within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. In Sheet
Metal Workers Local 80 (Limbach Co), 305 NLRB 312, 314-316 (1991), enfd. in relevant part
989 F.2d 515 (D.C. Cir. 1993), a union’s disclaimer of interest in representing certain employees
was found to be coercive under Section 8(b)(4). In Ets-Hokins Corp., 154 NLRB 839, 842
(1965), enfd. 405 F.2d 159 (9th Cir. 1968), a threat to cancel a collective bargaining agreement
with a neutral employer was found to be coercive. In Carpenters (Society Hill Towers Owner’s
Assn.), 335 NLRB 814, 826-829 (2001), enfd. 50 Fed. Appx. 88 (3rd Cir. 2002), broadcasts at a
jobsite at excessive volumes were found to violate the Act; and in Service Employees Local 399
(William J. Burns Agency), 136 NLRB 431, 436-437 (1962), a mass gathering was found to
violate the Act although no picketing was conducted.

The Board has also long held conduct does not require marching back and forth to found
to be unlawful picketing. In Lawrence Typographical Union No. 570 (Kansas Color Press), 169
NLRB 279, 283 (1968), enfd., 402 F.2d 452 (10 Cir. 1968), a respondent union hung a sign on a
trailer facing a plant from which the union sought recognition. Prior to September 19, 1966,
strikers engaged in ambulatory picketing. However, following September 19, the same strikers
continued to show up at the plant, four at a time, parked their cars near the trailer, and spent
their entire shift sitting in their cars, standing in the vicinity, making trips to the trailer, walking in
front of the plant and across one of its entrances. In finding this conduct constituted unlawful
picketing it was stated at page 283 that:

…the Board and the courts have held that patrolling in the common parlance of
movement and the carrying of placards, are not a sine qua non of picketing. Thus, in
Lumber and Sawmill Workers Local Union No. 2797, (Stoltze Land & Lumber Co.), 156
388, 394, the Board notes that the definitions of the words ‘picket’ and ‘picketing,’ set
forth in Black’s and Bouvier’s Law Dictionaries and in Webster’s New International
Dictionary (2d ed.), do not include ‘patrolling or the carrying of placards (as) a
concomitant element.’ And Mr. Justice Black, in speaking of ‘picketing … in
8(b)(4)(ii)(B),’ describes the concept of ‘patrolling’ as encompassing ‘standing or
marching back and forth or round and round… generally adjacent to someone else’s
premises…’ (Emphasis supplied.) N.L.R.B. v. Fruit and Vegetable Packers &
Warehousemen Local 760 (Tree Fruits), 377 U.S. 58 at 77 (concurring opinion).
In N.L.R.B. v. Local 182, IBT (Woodward Motors), 314 F.2d 53 (C.A. 2), the court of
appeals agreed with the Board that a union picketed when it representatives stationed
themselves in automobiles parked on the shoulder of a highway adjacent to a struck
plant and placed picket signs in a snow bank, explained the merits of the dispute to
inquiring persons, and occasionally got out of their cars to stop deliverymen from coming
on the premises. What the court said in rejecting the Union’s contention that its agents’
conduct did not constitute picketing, is precisely applicable to the instant case. The
court stated (314 F.2d at 57-58):

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
14

Webster’s new International Dictionary (2d Ed.) says that the verb ‘picket’ in the
labor sense means ‘to walk or stand in front of a place of employment as a
picket’ and that the noun means ‘a person posted by a labor organization at an
approach to the place of work….” Movement is thus not requisite, although there
was some. The activity was none the less picketing because the Union chose to
bisect it, placing the material elements in snow banks but protecting the human
elements…by giving them comfort of heated cars….11

So in the instant case, Respondent’s conduct was no less picketing because it placed a
sign on the Komfy Korner which indicated the purpose of the gathering of the strikers in
front of the Company’s premises or made that purpose apparent by handing out ‘On
Strike’ handbills to all strangers entering the Company’s premises or on occasion by
placing these handbills (which were the equivalent of the picket signs reduced in size)
against the window of their parked car so as to be visible to those entering the premises,
and placed the pickets in or around the automobiles adjacent to the Company’s
premises.
* * *
In the Lumber & Sawmill Workers Union case, supra, the Board applied the following
test (156 NLRB at 394):

The important feature of picketing appears to be the posting by a labor
organization or by strikers of individuals at the approach to a place of business to
accomplish a purpose which advances the cause of the union, such as keeping
employees away from work or keeping customers away from the employer’s
business.

See Mine Workers District 2, 334 NLRB 677, 686 (2001), holding that patrolling and patrolling
with carrying placards are not essential elements of picketing. Rather, “the essential feature of
picketing is the posting of individuals at entrances to a place of work.” Moreover, the Board has
found a union has engaged in picketing activity by the posting of stationary signs. See,
Construction & General Laborers Local 301, 260 NLRB 1311, 1312 (1982); and Local 182, Int’l
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc. 135 NLRB 851, fn. 1, enfd. 314 F.2d 53, 57-58 (2d Cir. 1963),
where the Board stated “the act of placing the usual picket signs in the snow bank abutting
Employer’s premises constituted picketing within the meaning of the Act. These signs were
watched by Respondent’s agents from a car parked on the shoulder of an adjacent highway to
make sure they were not removed or destroyed during the entire working day.” See also
Painters District Council 9 (We’re Associates), 329 NLRB 140, 142 (1999), and the cases cited
therein, holding that, “It is well settled that patrolling either with or without signs is not essential
to a finding of picketing.”

Similarly, in Kentov v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 15, 418 F.3d
1259, 1265 (11th Cir. 2005), the court held:
11 The Second Circuit went on to state in Woodward Motors that:
…this was still ‘more than speech and establishes a locus in quo that has far more
potential for inducing action or nonaction than the message the pickets convey.’ Building
Service Employers’ Int’l Union Local 262 v. Gazzam, 339 U.S. 532, 537, 70 S.Ct. 784,
787, 94 L.Ed.1045 (1950). At the very least the Board did not act unreasonably in
constructing ‘picket’, a statutory term relating to a subject within its area of special
competence, to include what the Union did here. (Citations omitted.) See, N.L.R.B. v.
Local 182, IBT (Woodward Motors), supra at 58.

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
15

Although the Union did not carry traditional picket signs, it is well-settled that the
existence of placards on sticks is not a prerequisite to a finding that a union engaged in
picketing. E.g., Mine Workers Dist. 2 (Jeddo Coal Co.), 334 NLRB 677, 686 (2001);
Service Employees Local 87 (Trinity Building Co.), 312 NLRB 715, 743 (1993). Instead,
‘(t)he important feature of picketing appears to be posting by a labor organization… of
individuals at the approach to a place of business to accomplish a purpose which
advances the cause of the union, such as keeping employees away from work or
keeping customers away from the employer’s business.’ Lumber & Sawmill Workers
Local Union No. 2797 (Stoltze Land & Lumber Co.,) 156 NLRB 388, 394 (1965).12

In Kentov v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local, supra, the court noted union
representatives patrolled in front of a hospital for about 2 hours carrying a large coffin, and
played funeral music from large speakers. The funeral procession was orderly, and ingress and
egress to the hospital was not blocked. The court held “our focus is whether the Union
threatened, coerced or restrained the hospital within the meaning of the NLRA”. Id. at 1263-
1264. The court held, “This activity could reasonably be expected to discourage persons from
approaching the hospital, to the same degree, if not more, as would five union agents carrying
picket signs.” The court stated:

One of the Union’s objectives in staging the procession was to exert pressure on the
hospital to cease doing business with the non-union contractors, with whom the Union
had a primary labor dispute. Under these facts, we hold that there is reasonable cause
to believe that the Union violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the NLRA.13 Id at. 1265-1266.

In Nashville Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 188 NLRB 470, 471 (1971), a Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) violation of the Act was found. There, Castner-Knott, a retail store, contracted with
McCrory, a non union contractor to build one of Castner-Knott’s facilities. In that case, the
Board held “Respondent (union) went beyond the limits permitted by the Act when it in effect
picketed Castner-Knott’s customer entrances with appeals for a general consumer boycott, with
an object of forcing or requiring Castner-Knott to cease doing business with nonunion
contractors, particularly, McCrory.” The Board noted, “Respondent’s appeals were not limited to
such Castner-Knott merchandise as was produced, or distributed to Castner-Knott, by McCrory.
Indeed, no such merchandise existed. Nor were the appeals made merely by publicity other
than picketing. It is clear, therefore that neither of the exempting provisos referred to above is
applicable in this case.” The Board cited N.L.R.B v. Fruit & Vegetable Packers &
Warehousemen, Local 760 (Tree Fruits), 377 U.S. 58 for the proposition of proscribing:

…such consumer picketing as we have here, since the picketing was not limited to the
merchandise produced or distributed to the retail store by another person with whom the
union had a legitimate primary labor dispute. The Court stated (at p.63) that a ‘union
appeal to the public at the secondary site not to trade at all with the secondary employer
12 In Kentov v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 15, supra at 1264, fn. 7,
the court distinguished Overstreet v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America,
Local Union No 1506, 409 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2005) from the facts in Kentov. I do not find here
that the Kentov court was adopting the ninth circuit’s rationale in Overstreet, as opposed to
explaining why the Overstreet decision was not dispositive of the facts in Kentov.
13 While the union in Kentov raised a First Amendment defense, the court in Kentov found
their holding was buttressed by a recent holding of an administrative law judge that the union’s
conduct constituted a secondary boycott. Id. at 1266, fn. 8.

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
16
goes beyond the goods of the primary employer, and seeks the public’s assistance in
forcing the secondary to cooperate with the union…’

In Loc. 248 Meat & Allied Food Workers, 230 NLRB 189, fn. 3 (1977), enfd. 571 F.2d 587 (7th
Cir. 1978), it was stated:

It is well established that the union engaging in consumer product picketing has the
burden of insuring that its actions do not affect the secondary employer’s business
beyond the sale of the primary product, and that a union cannot shift its burden of struck
product identification to the public. Atlanta Typographical Union NO. 48 (Times-Journal,
Inc.), 180 NLRB 1014 (1970); see also Bedding, Curtain & Drapery Workers Union,
Local 140, United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO (U.S. Mattress Corp.), 164
NLRB 271 (1967). In the instant case both McDonald’s and the Sentry Stores sold
meats other than that produced by MIMPA members. References to scab meat or scab
beef were not sufficient to advise customers as to the products they were not to buy, or
the name of the primary employer. Contrary to our dissenting colleague’s assertion, the
distribution of leaflets which identified the primary employer and the struck product do
not cure the picketing. ‘The realities of the situation demand that the legality of the
Union’s appeal be judged by a reading of the signs. The prohibitions of 8(b)(4)(B) are
applicable unless the picket signs themselves adequately inform potential customers of
the actions they are asked to take.’ Atlanta Typographical Union, supra at 1016.

See also San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21, 188 NLRB 673, 680 (1971), enfd. 465
F.2d 53 (9th Cir. 1972), holding that permissible product picketing is limited to products
adequately identified on the picket sign, and cannot encompass the entire business of the
secondary employer; and Salem Building Trades Council, 163 NLRB 33, 36 (1967), enfd, 388
F.2d 987 (9th Cir. 1968), where a violation was found where picketing was not sufficiently
identified to the primary employer, and where the construction had ended but the picketing had
a goal of preventing secondary employers from engaging in future business with the primary
employer who was the construction contractor.

I find the Union engaged in an unlawful secondary boycott against Goodell in violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by engaging in coercive picketing beginning on August 9, and continuing
thereafter when it posted a 20 by 4 foot banner near the entrance to Goodell’s office building
reading, in large print, “Shame On Goodell DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP” appearing with the
words “LABOR DISPUTE,” manned by two to four union agents. The evidence reveals the
Union engaged in ambulatory picketing at the site, during the time period of May 26 to July 15,
against primary employer Starkey, with picket signs reading, “Starkey Construction Company,
Incorporated does not pay the area standard wage and benefits, the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Council of Carpenters.” The signs also contained the statement, “We have a labor dispute with
the above-named company. We are appealing only for the public, the consumer. We are not
seeking to induce any person to cease work or refuse to make delivery.” The Union’s picketing
activity against Starkey included a large inflatable rat about a story and one half tall, sitting in a
truck. Picketers walked in an oval line chanting, “Who’s the rat? Starkey. Where’s the rat?
South Street.” Goss credibly testified he heard Goodell’s name being used in the chant on one
occasion. The Union continued its picketing activity at the site, during the period of July 18 to

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
17

August 5. The Union used the same picket sign, but substituted the name Wilhelm for
Starkey.14 Thus, the Union engaged in aggressive ambulatory picketing near the entrance to
Goodell’s office building during the period of May 26 to August 5.

On August 9, the Union ceased its ambulatory picketing at the site, but continued with its
course of conduct by posting a large sign near the entrances to Goodell’s office building naming
secondary Goodell the target of its labor dispute, while omitting reference to Starkey, the
primary employer. The banner was accompanied by two to four union agents. While the Union
was notified on October 25, that Starkey had completed its work at the site, the Union’s posting
of the banner continued thereafter, and was ongoing at the time of the unfair labor practice trial
on December 21. I find the Union’s banner was a form of picketing and that it was a
continuation of its prior picketing activity, and that it was coercive conduct against a secondary
or neutral employer in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. In NLRB v. Fruit &
Vegetables Packers, Local 760 (Tree Fruits), 377 U.S. 58, 77 (1964), Justice Black, in a
concurring opinion concerning picketing stated the concept of “patrolling” encompasses
“standing or marching back and forth or round and round… generally adjacent to someone
else’s premises…” (Emphasis supplied.) Similarly, the Board and some courts have held that
patrolling and carrying placards are not essential elements of picketing. See, Mine Workers
District 2, 334 NLRB 677, 686 (2001); Painters District Council 9 (We’re Associates), 329 NLRB
140, 142 (1999); Construction & General Laborers Local 301, 260 NLRB 1311, 1319 (1982);
Lawrence Typographical Union No. 570 (Kansas Color Press), 169 NLRB 279, 283 (1968),
enfd., 402 F.2d 452 (10 Cir. 1968); Lumber and Sawmill Workers Local Union No. 2797, (Stoltze
Land & Lumber Co.), 156 NLRB 388, 394; and Local 182, Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc.
135 NLRB 851, fn. 1, enfd. 314 F.2d 53, 57-58 (2d Cir. 1963). Cf. Sheet Metal Workers Local 15
(Brandon Regional Medical Center), 346 NLRB No. 22, (2006), slip op. at 2; and K Mart Corp.,
313 NLRB 50, 53 (1993) which viewed the totality of union’s conduct which included the posting
of banners as picketing.

I also find the Union’s picketing by use of its large banner manned by union agents near
the entrance to Goodell, a neutral employer’s offices, was coercive in that by the terms of its
sign, the Union was seeking a total consumer boycott of Goodell’s services. The banner states
Goodell was the subject of a labor dispute without further explanation to the public. The banner
did not name primary employer Starkey, and it remained posted and attended by agents of the
Union long after Starkey’s work had been completed at the site. In similar circumstances, the
Board has held that a union is engaged in an unlawful consumer boycott of the secondary
employer, because the union is not confining its dispute to the product sold or produced by the
primary employer, and as far as the public is aware the Union is seeking a total boycott of the
services of secondary or neutral employer Goodell. See, Loc. 248 Meat & Allied Food Workers,
230 NLRB 189, fn. 3 (1977), enfd. 571 F.2d 587 (7th Cir. 1978); Nashville Bldg. & Constr.
Trades Council, 188 NLRB 470, 471 (1971); San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21, 188
NLRB 673, 680 (1971), enfd. 465 F.2d 53 (9th Cir. 1972); and Salem Building Trades Council,
163 NLRB 33, 36 (1967) enfd. 388 F.2d 987 (9th Cir. 1968).15 The Union’s conduct had an even
greater impact on Goodell than just loss of future business, because as Goss credibly testified
14 Eisner testified Wilhelm did not perform work for Goodell’s construction, but was working
for another tenant in the building. I do not find this to be determinative, as members of the
public would have no way of knowing this, and all passersby would observe was the Union
engaging in ambulatory picketing at the site during the period of May 26 to August 5.
15 The Union’s distribution of handbills naming Starkey as the subject of its distribute does
not remedy the omission of Starkey’s name from the Union’s banner. See, Loc. 248 Meat &
Allied Food Workers, supra., at 189, fn. 3.

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
18
clients of Goodell who continued to use the law firm’s services had the possibility of having
those services comprised in litigation at the nearby Courthouse as a result of the Union’s
actions.

If the Board were to conclude the Union did not engage is not picketing here, I would still
find that the posting of its large banner, accompanied by two to four Union agents, coming on
the heels of lengthy ambulatory picketing at the site, and omitting from the banner that Starkey
was the subject of it labor dispute, constituted coercive conduct against Goodell. The posting of
a banner at Goodell’s premises that is much larger than the ordinary picket sign, accompanied
by two to four union agents, constitutes a form of conduct by the Union that is more compelling
than handbilling, for otherwise the Union would have merely handbilled. Rather, a large sign
manned by union agents stating “shame on” Goodell with the words “labor dispute,” could only
be read by passersby that the Union was seeking a boycott of Goodell’s services. In this regard
the banner, as does the traditional picket sign, sent a signal to members of the public not to use
Goodell’s services since the banner failed to truthfully advise the public that the Union’s primary
dispute was with Starkey, or even name Starkey. Since by the terms of the parties’ stipulation,
the banner could be held in place by two union agents, using up to four union agents at a time
was clearly designed to accomplish more than a mere posting, but rather was designed to
create a presence at the site. I find the banner was coercive by design in that the Union was
intentionally mimicking traditional picketing close to the entrance of Goodell’s office building,
and thereby sending the same signal as picketing to consumers to avoid Goodell’s services. I
find the Union’s conduct here was more coercive in certain ways than a traditional picket line,
which can be manned by as little as one person, in that by the shear size of the banner it could
be read by many more people than the traditional picket sign. I find the Union’s bannering
activity is ingenious conduct by the Union designed to replicate traditional picketing at the site of
a neutral employer, with the purpose of coercing Goodell by loss of business and by
compromising Goodell’s product, which is legal services, into refraining from doing business
with Starkey. It is plainly coercive conduct by the Union, designed to circumvent the secondary
boycott provisions of the Act. See, Kentov v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association
Local 15, 418 F.3d 1259, 1265-1266 (11th Cir. 2005).

In sum, I find the Union’s conduct in posting of the large banner, accompanied by two to
four union agents, at the premises of a neutral employer Goodell, while omitting name of the
company with which the Union had a primary labor dispute from the banner was coercive
conduct designed to enmesh Goodell in the Union’s labor dispute with Starkey and was conduct
violative of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(4) of the Act, whether or not it is concluded the Union was
engaged in formal picketing by its actions, although I have also concluded the Union did engage
in picketing by its actions. It is by now clear that coercive conduct within the meaning of that
section of the Statute is not limited to picketing. See, NLRB v. Fruit & Vegetables Packers, Local
760, (Tree Fruits), 377 U.S. 58, 68 (1964); Service Employees Intern. Union, AFL-CIO v.
N.L.R.B., 68 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Kentov v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association
Local 15, 418 F.3d 1259, 1264 (2005), fn. 6; Sheet Metal Workers Local 15 (Brandon Regional
Medical Center), 346 NLRB No. 22 (2006), slip op. at 2; Associated General Contractors v
NLRB, 514 F.2d 433, 438 (1975); Carpenters (Society Hill Towers Owner’s Assn.), 335 NLRB
814, 826-829 (2001), enfd. 50 Fed Appx. 88 (3rd Cir. 2002); Carpenter Kentucky District Council
(Wehr Constructors), 308 NLRB 1129, 1130, fn. 2 (1992); Local 32B-32J, Sheet Metal Workers
Local 80 (Limbach Co), 305 NLRB 312, 314-316 (1991), enfd. in relevant part 989 F.2d 515
(D.C. Cir. 1993); Ets-Hokins Corp., 154 NLRB 839, 842 (1965), enfd. 405 F.2d 159 (9th Cir.
1968); and Service Employees Local 399 (William J. Burns Agency), 136 NLRB 431, 436-437
(1962).

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
19

Since I find the Union’s posting a large banner at the site of a neutral employer, manned
by union agents, while omitting the name of the primary employer from the banner is an effort to
replicate a more traditional picket line and was conduct designed to coercively enmesh Goodell
in the Unions’ dispute with Starkey, I do not find the statutory prohibition of that conduct runs
counter to the First Amendment. In fact, the Union has handbills at the site which truthfully
advise the public of its dispute with Starkey asking to consumers to contact Goodell regarding
that dispute. The General Counsel has not issued complaint against the Union for the
distribution of those handbills at the site because it is that conduct which was sanctioned by the
Supreme Court’s DeBartolo decision.

The Union, in its brief, places great reliance on the court’s two to one majority decision in
Overstreet v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No.1506,
409 F.3d 1199, 1208 (CA 9, 2005), (Overstreet), denying the Region’s request for Section 10(l)
injunctive relief in a Carpenters Union bannering case.16 The court majority in Overstreet
stated, “We conclude that interpreting Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) to prohibit the Carpenters’ activity
would pose a ‘significant risk’ of infringing First Amendment rights.” Id. at 1212. The court
majority stated, “In the absence of any clear basis for construing Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) as
covering bannering generally, Overstreet can prevail only if the Carpenters’ actions in particular
were sufficiently ‘intimidating,’ DeBartolo, 485 U.S. at 580, to ‘threaten, coerce or restrain’
potential customers of the Retailers.” Id. at 1213.17 The court majority also found the General
Counsel erred by labeling the Carpenter’s conduct as “signal picketing” stating that conduct
constitutes an implicit instruction to union members, including employees of secondary
businesses, and free speech protections do not apply to a mere signal to members, or to
members of affiliates to engage in an unfair labor practice such as a strike proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A). The court majority stated that to turn the definition of signal picketing to
include any passerby would turn the specialized concept of any signal picketing into a category
synonymous with any communication requesting support for in a labor dispute. Id. at 1215-
1216. The court majority in Overstreet also rejected the General Counsel’s argument that the
Union’s only using the name of the retailer and the term labor dispute on the Union’s banner
was fraudulent because it implied to the public that the Carpenters had a primary labor dispute
with the retailers. The court majority concluded the term labor dispute is not limited to a dispute
with a primary employer citing the definition for labor dispute in Section 2(9) of the Act. The
court majority concluded that since the union had a labor dispute with the retailer for using
contractors paying below rate, the unions’ banner did not contain false statements.

I respectfully take issue with several of the conclusions reached by the court majority in
Overstreet. In making the assertion that the General Counsel could only prevail only if the
16 As set forth above, while that decision is instructive, it is not binding on me because I am
bound by Board law, and the statutory scheme calls for litigation before Board as reviewed by
the courts. See, Kentov v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 15, 418 F.3d
1259, 1262-63 (2005); and NLRB v. Denver Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675, 681-
682 (1951). Mover, the Overstreet case involved facts different from those in the present case
as the court majority noted the Carpenters Union there placed banners at significant distances
from the majority of involved retail establishments, scores if not hundreds of feet, and there was
no finding there by the court that the union had engaged in ambulatory picketing at the site
before posting the banners.
17 In making this assertion, the court majority in Overstreet rejected the contention that the
union’s bannering activity constituted picketing. However, for the reasons and case law set
forth above, I have reached an opposite result concluding the bannering activity here did
constitute picketing, and even if not it constituted more conduct coercive than handbilling.

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
20

Carpenters’ actions in particular were sufficiently ‘intimidating,’ to ‘threaten, coerce or restrain’
potential customers of the Retailers,” the court majority failed to address whether the loss of
business as a result of the signal and/or presence of bannering activity would coerce or restrain
a neutral employer. See, Kentov v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 15,
supra at 1265-1266. For example, it was not the picketing alone that was found to violate the
Act in NLRB v. Retail Clerks Local 1001, 447 U.S. 607, 611 (1980). There, the Court plurality
stated, “the Union’s secondary appeal against the central product sold by the title companies in
this case is reasonably calculated to induce customers not to patronize the neutral parties at
all.” Id. at 615. It was the totality of the conduct that was considered by the Court, including the
message, that warranted the finding of a statutory violation. This is illustrated by the prior
finding In NLRB v. Fruit & Vegetables Packers, Local 760 (Tree Fruits), 377 U.S. 58 (1964),
holding consumer picketing against neutral employers limited to appeals to customers not to
purchase specified products was found not to violate the Act. In both instances, there was
picketing, but it was not the picketing that determined whether a violation occurred. Rather, it
was the impact of that picketing based on the message as to whether it coerced or restrained
the neutral employer which was the determining factor with the goal of causing that employer to
cease doing business with the primary employer. See, Loc. 248 Meat & Allied Food Workers,
230 NLRB 189, fn. 3 (1977), enfd. 571 F.2d 587 (7th Cir. 1978); Nashville Bldg. & Constr.
Trades Council, 188 NLRB 470, 471 (1971); San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21, 188
NLRB 673, 680 (1971), enfd. 465 F.2d 53 (9th Cir. 1972); and Salem Building Trades Council,
163 NLRB 33, 36 (1967) enfd, 388 F.2d 987 (9th Cir. 1968).

I find, as set forth above, that the posting of a large sign manned by two to four union
agents near the entrance of a business naming that business as the subject of a labor dispute
sends a signal to members of the public that the Union is picketing that business, and unless
otherwise explained by the sign, seeking a total boycott of that business.18 I attribute more to
the general public than the Overstreet majority was willing to do, in that I find that most
passersby understand the symbolic concept of picketing, and that many will react to that
concept rather than the actual message being broadcast. I find the posting of a large sign at the
situs of a dispute, manned by union members, is conduct that is a form of picketing and would
be recognized as such by the general public. I find the posting of the sign would send a signal
to most members of the public that the Union was asking them to honor a picket line against the
named entity. As Justice Stephens stated in NLRB v. Retail Clerks Local 1001, 441 U.S. 607,
618-619, (1980), a case involving consumer picketing, “the very presence of a picket line may
induce action of one kind or another, quite irrespective of the nature of the ideas which are
being disseminated.” Justice Stevens went on to state, “The statutory ban in this case affects
only that aspect of the union’s efforts to communicate its views that calls for an automatic
response to a signal, rather than a reasoned response to an idea.”

I also respectfully take issue with the Overstreet majority’s application of the term “labor
dispute” to secondary employers in the Section 8(b)(4) context. In Local 7, Sheet Metal
Workers’ International Association, AFL-CIO, 345 NLRB No. 119 slip op. at 3 (2005), the Board
gave the following definition of the term “labor dispute” as referred to under Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)
of the Act:

The Act draws a distinction between picketing directed at a primary employer—an
employer with whom the union has a labor dispute—and picketing directed at a neutral
18 Since I find the Union’s omission of the Starkey’s name from its banner was a component
of its coercive conduct towards Goodell, I do not need to address the General Counsel’s
alternative contention in the complaint that such omission constituted fraudulent speech.

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
21

or secondary employers who have no dispute with the union in order to force those
employers to stop doing business with the primary employer. Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)
‘makes it unlawful for a labor organization or its agents to threaten, coerce, or restrain
any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object
thereof is forcing or requiring any person to cease doing business with any other
person.’ (Citations omitted.)19

In my view the Board’s definition is consonant with the Supreme Court’s statement regarding
the purpose of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act, which was enacted through amendments to the
Statute, and subsequent to the definition in Section 2(9) of the Act. Thus, the Court has stated
that Section 8(b)(4) reflects, “the dual congressional objectives of preserving the right of labor
organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes and of
shielding unoffending employers and others from pressure in controversies not their own.”
NLRB v. Denver Building Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675, 692 (1951). Thus, the dissent in the
Overstreet case asserted the Regional Director had sufficient likelihood of prevailing on the
fraudulent speech claim to warrant a granting of a preliminary injunction under the ALJ’s finding
and decision. The dissent stated:

Many people, because of their sympathies or their obligations as union members, will
not patronize firms whose employees are engaged in disputes over union recognition or
terms of employment. See, Overstreet v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, Local Union No.1506, supra at 1219.

The dissent noted the union continued to post its banners long after the firms had finished their
work and left, “so the banners and their ‘shame’ message were present even when there was
no work going on at the sites to which the union had any objection.” Id at 1219. The dissent
noted, citing the opinion of the administrative law judge in that case, that the only message that
could reasonably be conveyed to readers of the banners was that the respondent unions had
primary labor disputes with neutrals named on the banners and that those neutrals were not
treating their employees properly. The dissent quoted the administrative law judge in
concluding the union had the intent of causing targeted neutral employers such discomfiture
through the banners that persons would cease doing business with primary employers or
influence other neutral employers or persons to cease doing business with primary employers.

In sum, I find the Union is engaged in an unlawful secondary boycott in violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) of the Act against Goodell by the posting of a large banner, manned by two
to four union agents, near the entrance to Goodell’s premises labeling Goodell, a neutral
employer, as the subject of a labor dispute, omitting Starkey’s name from the banner, and
maintaining that banner long after Starkey, the employer with which the Union had the dispute
19 In Local 7, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO, supra at, 3, the
Board repeated the Moore Dry Dock standards, for lawful primary picketing, one of which is “the
picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the primary employer.” In the instant case,
the Union cites Service Employees Local 399 (Delta Air Lines), 293 NLRB 602 (1989), for the
proposition that omitting the name of the primary employer from the Union’s banner was lawful.
However, the Board has made clear the standards set forth in the Delta Airlines case apply only
to lawful handbilling. See, Service Employees Local 254 (Womens & Infants Hospital), 324
NLRB 743, 749 (1997), noting, “the carrying or wearing signs and placards places Respondent’s
activities beyond the mere dissemination of ideas. Whether intended or not, the signs may
induce action by employees or students without regard to their message.” See also, Teamsters
Local 917 (Industry City), 307 NLRB 1419, fn. 3 (1992).

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
22

had ceased work at the site. The Union’s conduct was picketing or other coercive conduct as it
sent a strong signal to members of the public to engage in a boycott of Goodell’s services,
particularly here where the Union’s large banner failed to explain that its labor dispute was with
Starkey, the primary employer. The Union’s conduct occurred against the backdrop in which it
had previously had engaged in lengthy and aggressive ambulatory picketing at the site, and it
not only served as a signal to potential customers who used the law firms services, but it
impacted on the ability of the law firm to perform those services for clients who remained loyal to
the law firm.

Conclusions of Law

1. Respondent, Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, by picketing at the Alex
Brown Building, One South Street, Baltimore, Maryland, from August 9, 2005, and thereafter,
with a banner which failed to identify Starkey Construction Co., Inc. as the employer with which
the Union had a primary labor dispute, engaged in coercive conduct with an object of placing
pressure on Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, and other persons, to cease doing business
with Starkey Construction Co., Inc., in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
2. The aforementioned unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) of the Act.

Remedy

Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it
must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.

On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended20

ORDER

Respondent, Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from
Picketing, or by any like or related conduct, including erecting and displaying a banner,
threatening, coercing, or restraining, Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where an object thereof is to place
pressure on Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, or any other person, to cease doing
business with Starkey Construction Co., Inc., or any other person.
2. Take the following affirmative actions
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its union office in Baltimore,
Maryland, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix”21 on forms provided by the Regional
20 If 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 purposes.
21 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–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
23
Director for Region 5, 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 members are customarily posted. 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 members at any time since August 9, 2005.
(b) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the notice for posting by
Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, if willing, at all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted.
(c) 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.

Dated, Washington, D.C. March 2, 2006

____________________
Eric M. Fine
Administrative Law Judge

JD–16–06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
24
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 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 on your behalf with your employer
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities

WE WILL NOT by picketing, or by any like or related conduct, including erecting and
displaying a banner, threaten, coerce, or restrain Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where an object
thereof is to place pressure on Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, or any other person, to
cease doing business with Starkey Construction Co., Inc. or any other person.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce you in the
exercise of your rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.

MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL COUNCILOF
CARPENTERS
(Labor Organization)

Dated By
(Representative) (Title)

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.
103 South Gay Street, The Appraisers Store Building, 8th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202-4061
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
410-962-2822.
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, 410-962-3113.