Norquay Construction, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge OpinionsDec 6, 201128-CA-023412 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 6, 2011) Copy Citation JD(SF)–46-11 Tempe, AZ 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DIVISION OF JUDGES NORQUAY CONSTRUCTION, INC. and Case 28-CA-23412 THOMAS DeMOTT, an Individual Johannes Lauterborn, Esq., for the General Counsel. Frederick C. Miner, Esq., (Littler Mendelson, PC.), of Phoenix, Arizona, for the Respondent. Thomas E. DeMott, Anthem, Arizona, the Charging Party. DECISION I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE LANA H. PARKE, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to unfair labor practice charges filed by Thomas DeMott (DeMott), an individual,1 the Regional Director for Region 28 of the National Labor Relations Board (Region 28 and the Board, respectively) issued a complaint and notice of hearing (complaint) dated May 31, 2011. The complaint alleges that Norquay Construction, Inc. (Respondent) violated Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). This case was tried in Phoenix, Arizona, on October 5 and 6, 2011. II. Issues A. Did Respondent violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following conduct: 1. Promulgating and maintaining an overly broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting solicitation without appointment at Respondent’s jobsite. 2. By the following conduct, denying representatives of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, a labor organization, access to Respondent’s jobsite and to employees represented by it who were performing work for employer- parties to collective-bargaining agreements with it: which employers performed services at Respondent’s jobsite: a. Ordering union representatives to leave Respondent’s jobsite. b. Physically ejecting DeMott from the Respondent’s construction trailer. c. Inflicting bodily injury upon DeMott by pushing him out of Respondent’s construction trailer and down its stairs. 1 DeMott at all relevant times was a representative and employee of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, a labor organization. JD(SF)–46-11 2 d. Summoning security guards to escort union representatives off Respondent’s jobsite. III. JURISDICTION5 At all material times Respondent, an Arizona corporation, with an office and place of business in Tempe, Arizona, (Respondent’s facility), has been engaged in business as a general contractor in the building and construction industry doing commercial, industrial, and residential construction. During the 12-month period ending March 22, Respondent, in conducting its 10 business operations, pursuant to a contract with the City of Phoenix financed by funds from the Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, provided services for the City of Phoenix, Arizona, valued in excess of $2.8 million for work on the Phoenix central bus station. At all material times, the Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. At all material times the Southwest Regional 15 Council of Carpenters (the Union) has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT20 Unless otherwise explained, findings of fact are based on party admissions, stipulations, and uncontroverted testimony regarding events occurring during the period of time relevant to these proceedings. On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I find 25 the following events occurred in the circumstances described below during the period relevant to these proceedings. The City of Phoenix, Arizona, contracted with Respondent to renovate the city’s municipal transit facility, the Phoenix central bus station (the project or the central bus station), 30 located on Central Avenue in Phoenix (the jobsite). The project was ongoing during 2010–2011. The construction area of the jobsite was fenced pursuant to the city's project requirements, and Respondent posted “No Trespassing†signs to prevent public entry. Under Respondent’s contract with Phoenix, Respondent had exclusive use of a staging area on city property, located about 300 feet south of the construction site. A tall fence, separate from the construction site fencing, 35 surrounded the staging area, which was accessible through a 20-foot opening. In the staging area, Respondent placed a 24 by 8 foot mobile construction trailer that served as its jobsite offices (the construction trailer). The construction trailer stood 4-5 feet off the ground. The trailer’s 3-foot wide entry 40 door was accessible by a metal stairway parallel to and abutting the trailer. The stairway had four stairs rising to a metal landing measuring approximately 3 by 4 feet positioned immediately in front of the doorway. The stairway landing was not flush with the trailer door, requiring an approximately 3-inch step up for entry to the trailer.2 Metal bars surrounded the stairway perimeters, providing hand railings for the stairs and landing and restricting the trailer door from 45 opening outward more than 90 degrees. On the side of the trailer at the foot of the stairway, 2 The step up estimation is based on photographs of the trailer taken on October 1. JD(SF)–46-11 3 Respondent posted a company banner identifying the trailer as the offices of Norquay Construction and setting out its Tempe address and telephone and FAX numbers. Respondent contracted with various subcontractors, including Progressive Concrete 5 Works, Inc. (Progressive Concrete) to perform work on the project. In October 2010 Progressive Concrete employed 12 workers at the jobsite. Progressive Concrete was signatory to a collective-bargaining agreement (Progressive Concrete CBA) with the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (the Union).3 Respondent was not signatory to any collective-bargaining agreement with the Union.10 The Progressive Concrete CBA provided for union-representative access to company jobsites during working hours upon reasonable effort to advise Progressive Concrete of union- representative presence and without interference with work. In the case of a secured access jobsite, such as the project, the Progressive Concrete CBA provided that where persons entering 15 the project had to be checked through a guarded gate or similar situation, Progressive Concrete was to make arrangements for union representatives to enter the project. No evidence was adduced that the Union asked Progressive Concrete to make, or that Progressive Concrete made, any arrangements for union representatives to enter the jobsite or that union representatives visited Progressive Concrete employees on the jobsite.20 From August 2010 to August 2011, Kenneth Scott Rankin (Rankin) served as Respondent’s superintendent and project manager, utilizing the construction trailer served as his administrative center. It contained two office areas: a rear area where Rankin’s office was situated and a front or lobby area, out of which the trailer’s entry door opened.25 During August 2010 significant numbers of solicitors called at the construction trailer.4 Among the visitors were various representatives of the Union who came weekly to the construction trailer and engaged Rankin in desultory conversation for 15-20 minutes per visit. In September, union representative visits increased. Rankin thought the stream of visitors to the 30 construction trailer wasted his time. In late September, Rankin posted on the entry door the following sign to which was affixed his business card containing his email address and his company cell phone number: NO35 HIRING ON-SITE ABSOLUTELY NO SOLICITATION W/O40 APPOINTMENT 3 The employees of two other subcontractors worked at the jobsite in October 2010; those subcontractors were not signatory to contracts with the Union. 4 Solicitors included representatives of labor companies, rental equipment companies, contract- seeking subcontractors, and construction materials companies. Employment seekers frequently sought interviews with Rankin at the construction trailer. JD(SF)–46-11 4 On October 1, 2010, the Union assigned representatives DeMott and Chuck Harrison (Harrison) the routine job of visiting assigned construction jobsites to speak to the respective general contractors. The Union gave the representatives “profiles†of the jobs they were to visit. 5 Each profile named the jobsite general contractor and listed known subcontractors working the jobsite. A profile’s purpose was to aid union representatives in discussing contract concerns with represented subcontractor employees and/or to promote union interest among unrepresented subcontractor employees. The representatives also carried listings of various union-signatory contractors, which the representatives were expected to give to general contractors to advise 10 them of area-standards contractors available to meet a construction project’s subcontracting needs. One of the October 1 profiles assigned to DeMott and Harrison named Respondent as the general contractor on the central bus station jobsite and its concrete subcontractor, Progressive Concrete, as a signatory company. 15 On the morning of October 1, 2010, 12 employees of Progressive Concrete were at the jobsite running a concrete pour. At about 11:30 a.m., without having made an appointment, union representatives DeMott and Harrison arrived at the Respondent’s jobsite and went directly to the construction trailer. DeMott and Harrison intended to find out from Rankin what if any subcontracting work the Company had yet to bid out. If Rankin told them he planned to hold 20 future subcontract bidding, the representatives planned to give Rankin the prepared listing of area-standards contractors and to ask him if he would like the Union to invite them to bid on the projected work.5 Rankin, DeMott, and Harrison testified of the events that occurred after DeMott and 25 Harrison arrived at the construction trailer. I found both DeMott and Harrison to be candid, reliable, and mainly corroborative witnesses. Much of Rankin’s testimony was essentially consistent with that of DeMott and Harrison, but where Rankin’s testimony differs materially from that of DeMott and Harrison, I credit DeMott and Harrison except as otherwise noted. The following account is a reasonable amalgamation of the credible testimony of DeMott and 30 Harrison. Upon reaching the trailer, DeMott with Harrison behind him climbed the stairway, knocked at, and then opened, the unlocked entry door. Two children watching television inside the trailer pointed to the rear area. Just then Rankin, who was working a half day and expecting 35 the arrival of a Phoenix construction inspector, opened the door from his office and before the representatives could identify themselves, motioned them into his office. DeMott walked to the door of the office and said they would like to ask Rankin a couple of questions. Rankin invited them into his office. DeMott and Harrison identified themselves as representatives of the Union and said they were looking for subcontractor information on some of the carpentry-related crafts. 40 Rankin said, “If you want any information on this jobsite, you can look it up on the Dodge 5 Harrison testified that another purpose of the October 1 visit was to get information about Progressive Concrete and that the representatives usually checked in with the superintendent before going onto a jobsite. JD(SF)–46-11 5 Reports.†6 Rankin told DeMott and Harrison, “You [representatives from the Union] are coming here Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday.†He pointed out that the notice on the trailer door asked visitors or solicitors to make an appointment. Rankin said he was trying to get some work done and told them to leave the trailer. 5 Harrison told Rankin that if they had a labor dispute, the Union could picket the job. DeMott, however, assured Rankin that the Union would demonstrate at the jobsite only if a contractor there was not paying area standard wages and benefits and such a decision would only be made by his and Harrison’s bosses. Loudly and profanely, Rankin demanded the two 10 representatives leave the trailer. Harrison reiterated that the representatives were just looking for subcontractor information, but Rankin repeatedly ordered them out of his trailer. Harrison urged DeMott to leave and walked toward the exit. DeMott followed, telling Rankin, “We have a federal right to be on the project.â€7 As DeMott moved toward the exit, 15 Rankin pushed him in the back. DeMott told Rankin not to touch him and continued to the doorway. At the door, DeMott steadied himself on the door frame before stepping onto the stairway landing. As DeMott steadied himself, Rankin grasped his upper right arm from behind and, pushing him hard in the middle of his upper back, propelled him onto the landing and down the stairs.8 During the fall, DeMott struck his neck and hand on the railing. Rankin called to two 20 City of Phoenix security guards, saying he needed help and telling one of them he wanted to make sure the two representatives got off the property. There is no evidence the security guards did anything to encourage DeMott and Harrison to leave the jobsite, and the two did not, in fact, leave the property. DeMott telephoned his 25 supervisor who in turn called the police. DeMott retrieved his camera from his car and took pictures. When the police arrived, DeMott asked the police to arrest Rankin for assault, which they declined to do. Immediately following his fall on October 1, 2010, DeMott experienced severe 30 musculoskeletal pain, and later that day sought treatment at an urgent care facility. 9 In the 6 The Dodge Reports were nationwide area listings of construction work to enable contractors to bid on construction jobs but did not provide the names of subcontractors on specific projects. 7 DeMott testified that he added, “We should be able to talk to the workers.†Harrison did not corroborate this statement, which is incongruous with the subcontractor-focus of the interchange. I do not, therefore, credit DeMott’s testimony that he said anything about talking to any workers. 8 Rankin testified that DeMott, with fists clenched at his side, “squared off . . . in an aggressive stance.†Rankin grasped the back of DeMott’s upper arm and forearm and escorted him to the doorway. From the ground facing the entry door, Harrison told Rankin he was just a f__ing a__hole, and Rankin released his hold on DeMott. Rankin believed that DeMott intentionally fell. I do not accept Rankin’s testimony. 9 At the time of the fall, DeMott had existing back and hip problems, having had prior neck surgery with a 70-day work absence. Notwithstanding his continuing back impairment, DeMott resumed work with the Union with no physical restrictions and continued to perform his usual and customary work for the Union until October 1, 2010. Between May 2009 and October 2010, DeMott received seven injections to his back and hip, the last of which was administered on September 10, 2010. JD(SF)–46-11 6 following weeks, DeMott filed a claim with the California Department of Workers’ Compensation (DWC), pursuant to which he received additional medical treatment, including physical therapy. DeMott did not work again in any capacity after October 1, 2010. In early February 2011, DeMott’s DWC claim was denied, and he was released to return to work with no 5 physical limitations. Shortly thereafter, the Union informed DeMott that it had no position available for him. V. Discussion 10 The Board requires general construction contractors to grant union representatives access to jobsites to enable the union to carry out representational duties owed to a unionized subcontractor’s employees pursuant to the access provisions of a labor agreement between the subcontractor and a union. The Board reasons that the general contractor, “by soliciting other employers to perform work at the jobsite, ‘invited’ subcontractors . . . onto the jobsite, and thus 15 subjected its ‘property rights' to the [u]nion's contractual ‘access’ rights with those subcontractors.†CDK Contracting Co., 308 NLRB 1117 (1992). See also Wolgast Corp. v. NLRB, 349 F.3d 250 (6th Cir. 2003), enfg. 334 NLRB 203 (2001); Ambrose Electric, 330 NLRB 78 (1999). In Swardson Painting Co., 340 NLRB 179–80 (2003), the Board admonished: 20 An employer who denies nonemployee union representatives access to private property for purposes related to the exercise of employees' Section 7 rights bears a threshold burden of establishing that, at the time it denied access, it had a property interest that entitled it to exclude individuals from the property [citations omitted]. If the employer fails to meet this threshold burden, there is no actual conflict between private property 25 rights and Section 7 rights, and its actions therefore will be found to violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Absent a showing of an exclusionary property interest, analysis under Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527, 538 (1992) is not required.10 30 Even where a general contractor, having subjected its property rights to a union's contractual access rights with subcontractors, has no exclusionary property interest in its jobsites, a union's right of access is not without limitation. A contractor has a right to require union representatives to submit to reasonable and nondiscriminatory restrictions, such as not interfering with employees’ work or having to check in at a jobsite office. Ambrose Electric, supra at 78;35 Peck/Jones Construction Corp, 338 NLRB 16 (2002), citing Wolgast Corp., 334 NLRB (2001) (union agents were not entitled to enforce their contractual access right when they failed to follow general contractor’s reasonable and nondiscriminatory sign-in rule). The facts in this case prompt discussion of two issues the Board has considered in 40 construction jobsite access cases: (1) whether on October 1, 2010, Respondent had an exclusionary property interest in the central bus jobsite and/or its construction trailer that 10 Lechmere holds that where access to an employer's private property is sought by nonemployee union organizers seeking to exercise Sec. 7 rights “derivatively,†the threshold question is whether the employees are otherwise inaccessible. Id. at 537–538. Only if an inaccessibility showing is made must employee Sec. 7 rights and employer property rights be balanced. Id. at 538. JD(SF)–46-11 7 permitted Respondent to restrict access to the jobsite and/or the construction trailer, (2) whether DeMott and Harrison accessed the construction trailer on October 1, 2010 for a purpose related to the exercise of employees’ Section 7 rights, and (3) assuming no exclusionary property interest existed, whether Respondent had nonetheless set reasonable and nondiscriminatory 5 restrictions on access to its construction trailer that the Union was obligated to follow. Inasmuch as Respondent invited Progressive Concrete to perform work at the central bus jobsite, it subjected any arguable property rights in the jobsite to the Union’s contractual access rights with Progressive Concrete. Respondent has not, therefore, met its threshold burden of 10 showing an exclusionary property interest in the central bus jobsite where Progressive Concrete employees were working. Consequently, Respondent could not lawfully restrict representatives of the Union from accessing the jobsite to visit or otherwise to provide representational services to Progressive Concrete’s employees. While Respondent had no exclusionary property interest in the construction area of the 15 central bus jobsite where invited subcontractors worked, it does not automatically follow that Respondent had no exclusionary property interest in any other part or component of the jobsite. By contract, the City of Phoenix allowed Respondent the exclusive use of a staging area at the jobsite, in which area Respondent placed its construction trailer and administrative office. There is no evidence that Progressive Concrete or any other subcontractor was invited to perform work20 in the staging area, particularly at or in the construction trailer. In those circumstances, Respondent has shown that it had an exclusionary property interest in its construction trailer. Since jobsite employees were not inaccessible by virtue of Respondent’s exercising its exclusionary property interest in its construction trailer, Respondent was free to deny, nondiscriminatorily, access to the trailer.25 Even assuming Respondent had not established an exclusionary property interest in the construction trailer, the Union's contractual right of access was not without limitation, as noted above. Access could properly be limited to purposes relating to represented employees’ Section 7 rights and be circumscribed by reasonable and nondiscriminatory restrictions. 30 There is no evidence that DeMott and/or Harrison’s purpose in visiting Respondent’s trailer on October 1 related to the exercise of employees' Section 7 rights. It is clear that DeMott and Harrison’s objective in visiting the trailer was to glean from Rankin information about Respondent’s subcontracting plans. As followup, the two representatives intended to present to Rankin a prepared list of area-35 standards subcontractors and to encourage him to select from the list when filling any subcontractor openings. That objective did not relate to the exercise of employees' Section 7 rights and did not, therefore, provide any Section 7-protected basis for accessing the trailer.11 40 DeMott testified that one purpose of visiting the trailer was to extend Respondent the courtesy of checking in with the construction supervisor before talking to Progressive Concrete employees. If union representatives were required to check in at the construction trailer before entering 11 Wolgast Corp., 334 NLRB 203 (2001), cited by the General Counsel is inapposite. In Wolgast, the union accessed the jobsite generally, i.e., the actual location where represented employees worked, in order to investigate a safety complaint lodged by a union member jobsite worker; both the location and the purpose were clearly linked to Sec. 7 protections. JD(SF)–46-11 8 the jobsite to provide representational services, then accessing the trailer would be related to the exercise of employees' Section 7 rights. But there is no evidence of any such check in requirement.12 Moreover, any courtesy check in could have been easily accomplished by observing the constraints posted on the trailer and telephoning Rankin at his posted cell phone 5 number. The no-solicitation notice posted on the trailer entry door simply restricted solicitation without appointment. The notice was nondiscriminatory on its face, and there is no evidence it was applied discriminatorily or that its conditions were unreasonable. The notice merely required all persons who wanted to meet with Rankin to make appointments, the scheduling for which Rankin made himself readily available by posting his cell phone number. 10 Here Respondent had an exclusionary property interest in its construction trailer, which, particularly given the purpose and circumstances of DeMott and Harrison’s October 1, 2010 visit, permitted Respondent to deny them access. Alternatively, Respondent set reasonable and nondiscriminatory restrictions on DeMott and Harrison’s access to its construction trailer, the15 failure to follow which lost the two representatives access entitlement. Because DeMott and Harrison made no effort to schedule a visit before entering the construction trailer, they cannot claim that their ejection from it violated their contractual right of access. See Peck/Jones Construction Corp., supra at 17. Under either scenario, Respondent could properly bar DeMott and Harrison from the trailer. In these circumstances, while Rankin’s violent expulsion of 20 DeMott from the construction trailer was repugnant and inexcusable and while it may have transgressed civil or criminal laws, it did not violate the Act. The complaint alleges that Respondent promulgated and maintained an overly broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting solicitation at Respondent’s jobsite without appointment. The 25 only evidence of any such rule is the no-solicitation sign posted on the construction trailer. The no-solicitation sign, which I have found set reasonable and nondiscriminatory limitations on solicitation, cannot, of itself, prove the allegation. No evidence was adduced that the no- solicitation notice was posted anywhere at the jobsite other than at the trailer, and there is no evidence Respondent required appointments for solicitations conducted on the jobsite generally. 30 Further, no evidence was adduced that the construction trailer served as a gateway to the jobsite, thereby compelling jobsite-visit screening through the trailer. Finally, a reasonable reading of the notice justifies an inference that it applied only to individuals seeking to meet with occupants of the construction trailer. 35 The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by ordering the union representatives off the jobsite. The evidence shows that after Rankin forcibly expelled DeMott from the construction trailer, he told a security guard to make sure the two union representatives got off the property. It is reasonable to infer that Rankin’s order encompassed the entire jobsite and not just the trailer from which the representatives had already been 40 removed. As already discussed, the Union had an access right to the jobsite, with which access 12 The General Counsel argues that sec. 2620 of the Union’s agreement with Progressive Concrete required the Union “to make every reasonable effort to advise the contractor or his representative of his presence on the project.†That provision clearly applies to the contractor, Progressive Concrete; the agreement is silent as to any obligation owed the general contractor. JD(SF)–46-11 9 right Rankin’s order interfered. Although no employee was present to hear Rankin’s order, the Board holds to the principle that acts of unions and their agents can be protected under the Act. Golden Stevedoring Co., 335 NLRB 410, 414 (2001), citations omitted. As the Board observed, it would be “curious and myopic†to hold otherwise, for a contrary interpretation would mean 5 that “conduct that is protected when engaged in by . . . employees . . . would lose its protection if engaged in by the employees' union on their behalf.†BE & K Construction Co., 329 NLRB 717, 724 (1999), enfd. 246 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2001). It is immaterial that the security guard failed to execute Rankin’s order. Accordingly, I find that when Rankin directed a security guard to escort DeMott and Harrison off the jobsite, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1).10 VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 15 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by ordering union representatives to leave a construction jobsite in which it had no exclusionary property interest.20 4. The unfair labor practices set forth above affect commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY25 Having found Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it must be ordered to cease and desist and to post appropriate notices in the manner set forth hereafter. ORDER 30 The Respondent, Norquay Construction, Inc., Tempe, Arizona, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from ordering union representatives of Southwest Regional Council 35 of Carpenters or any other union, to leave a jobsite in which it has no exclusionary property interest. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. 40 (a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities in Tempe, Arizona, and any offices operation in connection with the Phoenix central bus station project, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.â€13 Copies of the notice, on forms 13If 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)–46-11 10 provided by the Regional Director for Region 28 after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. 5 Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means.14 In the event that, 10 during the pendency of these proceedings, Respondent has gone out of business or left the jobsite involved in these proceedings, Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by Respondent at any time since October 1, 2010. (b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn 15 certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that Respondent has taken to comply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.20 DATED: Washington, D.C. December 6, 2011 Lana H. Parke Administrative Law Judge 14 The question of whether Respondent electronically communicates with employees is left to the compliance stage of these proceedings. 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 do anything that interferes with these rights. More particularly, WE WILL NOT order or instruct union representatives of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters or any other union, to leave our customers' jobsites where we have no property right permitting us to exclude them. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights stated above. NORQUAY CONSTRUCTION, INC. (Employer) 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. 2600 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800, Phoenix, AZ 85004-3099 (602) 640-2160, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. 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, (602) 640-2146. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation