Plumbers, Local 60

PLUMBERS, LOCAL 60 United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 60, AFL-CIO and Circle, Inc. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 60, AFL-CIO and Union Carbide Corporation Chemi- cals & Plastics Division. Cases 15-CC-493 and 15-CC-494 March 2, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On October 25, 1972, Administrative Law Judge Sidney D. Goldberg issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel and Charging Party Circle, Inc., filed briefs in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, and Charging Party Union Carbide Corporation filed an answering brief to Respondent's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified herein,' and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, United Associa- tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 60, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. i In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that picketing at Gates 7 and 29 was unlawful , we do not rely on his statement that picketing at gates other than those assigned for the use of the primary employers could not be primary because it was not shown that the Union Carbide plant was the primary place of business for these employers Rather, we find, on the basis of all the evidence, including the refusal to permit Union Carbide employees to enter a gate reserved for them, that Respondent's picketing was designed to enmesh neutrals in its dispute and hence violated Sec 8 (b)(4)(i) and ( u) (B) of the Act 202 NLRB No. 21 DECISION 99 SIDNEY D. GOLDBERG, Administrative Law Judge: This is a "reserved gate" case. The decision turns on whether the area behind the reserved gate must be regarded, with respect to the employers engaged in the labor dispute, as their primary site of operations or as a common situs on which they and several other employers are conducting independent operations. The complaint herein' alleges that United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 60, AFL-CIO (respondent or the union) had picketed, and was picketing, the four gates designated by the numbers 7, 29, 30, and 31 at the chemical plant of Union Carbide Corporation Chemicals & Plastics Division (Union Carbide) in Taft, Louisiana, with signs denoting labor disputes with Circle, Inc. (Circle), Delta Iron Works, Inc. (Delta), and Union Services, despite the fact that employees of Circle, Delta, and Union Services used only one of those gates, the one designated as Gate 30. Respondent's picketing, the complaint alleges, induced persons employed by Union Carbide and other employers to engage in strikes and refusals to work, and it threatened, coerced, and restrained Union Carbide and other employ- ers, with an object of forcing or requiring Union Carbide and other employers to cease doing business with Circle, Delta, and Union Services. Respondent's conduct, the complaint alleges, was violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act). Respondent answered, admitting that it had commenced its picketing at Gates 30 and 31 pursuant to a labor dispute with Circle, Delta, and Union Services and alleging that, after it observed that the gate designations were not enforced by Union Carbide and that all gates were frequently used by employees of Circle, Delta, Union Services, and their suppliers, it picketed Gates 7 and 29 as well. The issues so raised were tried before me on March 15, 16, 17, and 21, 1972, at New Orleans, Louisiana. All parties were represented- were afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and argue on the facts and the law. Briefs filed by the General Counsel, by counsel for respondent and by counsel for the charging parties have been considered. For the reasons hereinafter set forth in detail, I find that the Union Carbide plant was not the principal situs of the operations of Circle, Delta, and Union Services, but was a common situs upon which they, as well as Union Carbide, pursued independent activities in a business relationship. I also find that the gate violations proved by respondent did not justify its continuous picketing at Gates 7 and 29, but that its conduct in so doing impels the conclusion that an object thereof was to induce action by employees of neutral employers to force those persons to cease doing business with Circle, Delta, and Union Services, in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the Act. Upon the entire record herein, and considering the i Issued January 13. 1972 on charges filed December 13, 1971 100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The parties Respondent admits that it is a labor organization. It also admits that both Circle and Union Carbide, the charging parties, are employers whose annual imports and exports exceed $50,000 in value. I find that they are persons engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The setting This case involves activities at the chemical plant owned and operated by Union Carbide at Taft, Louisiana, about 15 miles upriver (west) 'from New Orleans. The plant property runs along the southern shore of the Mississippi for about three-fourths of a mile and extends southward about a mile and a half. Between its riverside boundary and the river itself there are the paved public highway designated as Louisiana Highway 18 and the levee along the river. The plant property is completely fenced, with several gates, some used and some not used, opening into it from the highway. To facilitate description of the location of the gates and some of the installations on the plant property, a sketch thereof is set forth on the following page. At the time of the occurrences in this case ; that is, beginning December 10, 1971, the highway gates in use were those designated by the numbers 7, 29, 30, and 31. As the sketch shows, Gate 7 is at about the center of the riverfront boundary and the blacktop road passing through that gate leads to Union Carbide's administration building where there is another gate, referred to herein as Gate 7A, through which access may be had to the operating areas of the plant property. Gates 29, 30, and 31 are located near the west end of the river boundary. These, also, give access only to the plant property: the operating areas of the plant cannot be reached without passing through guarded gates inside the property. The road running through Gate 29 is a blacktop road: the roads passing through Gates 30 and 31 are topped only with crushed shell and they join the road passing through Gate 29 shortly after traversing those gates. (See exibit on page 109.) Raw material for use in the plant comes in, and the chemicals produced by the plant are shipped out, by steamship, barge, railroad, and trucks. 3. The issues The facts are practically undisputed but the inferences that respondent urges be drawn from them are, in some areas, quite different from the inferences urged by the other parties. The General Counsel and the charging parties contend that the Taft plant must be regarded as the common situs upon which both Union Carbide and its contractors perform their functions: that this case therefore, is governed by the Moore Dry Dock rule,2 and that respon- dent's picketing, contravening that rule in several respects, must be held to have violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the Act. Respondent contends that operation of the plant is the joint and allied effort of Union Carbide and its contrac- tors; that the tract is the place of business of Circle, Delta, and Union Services, with whom it has disputes, as well as that of Union Carbide; that the appropriate rule is that set forth in the General Electric case3 and that, therefore, it was justified in picketing at all the gates. Respondent further contends that, even if the Moore Dry Dock rule is applicable, Circle, Delta, and Union Services failed to restrict themselves to the gate reserved for them but used all four gates and that, therefore, its picketing at all of those gates wasjustified. 4. The maintenance contracts The operation of the plant is conducted exclusively by employees of Union Carbide and the products of the plant are sold by that company. The maintenance of the plant, however, as distinguished from its operation for pro- duction, is performed only in part by Union Carbide employees. Although Union Carbide has a complete maintenance organization and many maintenance employ- ees, a substantial part of this function is performed by other companies under contracts with Union Carbide. It was stipulated that the chief of maintenance at the Taft plant would testify, if questioned, that this practice of using outside contractors for supplementary maintenance is a standard practice throughout the petrochemical manufac- turing industry of the United States and there was no evidence contradicting such stipulated testimony. From 1966, when the plant began operating, until June 1971, most of the maintenance work was performed under contract by Westinghouse Engineering and Maintenance Company. In addition, some was being performed by another contractor, Peter Kewitt, and some was being performed by Union Carbide's own employees. In per- forming its contract, Westinghouse had approximately 300 of its employees on the premises at all times, including pipefitters, electricians, iron workers, engineers, carpenters, and painters. Since the expiration of the contract with Westinghouse, Union Carbide has carried on the maintenance work 2 Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Co), 92 NLRB 547 3 Local 761 1 U E v N L R B, 366 U S 673, affg 123 NLRB 1547 PLUMBERS, LOCAL 60 through its own employees and about 150 contractors. There are usually about 100 contract employees with regular assignments at the plant and the amount of work performed by the individual contractors varies from full- time work by about 30 employees down to occasional services by one or two employees. Much of the service work is performed on a cost-plus basis but Union Carbide also enters into contracts for specific work at a fixed price for labor and materials. The contractors who are constant- ly called upon to perform supplemental maintenance work have annual contracts- called "evergreen" contracts- which establish only the general terms of their relationship. Each job ordered under these contracts is evidenced by a "work order" accompanied by a description of the work to be performed and, where appropriate, a list of the materials required to complete it. Although the contractors on the plant site perform specified services as requested, Union Carbide provides much of the material required as well as some of the tools. In addition, it provides the contractors and their employees with transportation throughout the plant site by a bus which runs along fixed routes or by lending trucks to them. It also provides gasoline and oil for the contractors' own trucks used in connection with work on the site. The contractors who perform a substantial number of jobs and who have employees on the premises practically all the time are provided with facilities for changing clothes, keeping tools, and office space. The facilities of each contractor are separate from those of Union Carbide and from those assigned, to other contractors. Under ordinary circumstances, the employees of contractors perform their work separately from employees of Union Carbide and other contractors, but Union Carbide employ- ees, operating cranes or derricks, do most of the moving and hoisting of heavy machinery or vessels. At such times the rigging is either done or supervised by Union Carbide employees. On rare occasions, or in emergency situations, employees of contractors have worked with Union Carbide employees for short periods of time. Whenever an order is issued to a contractor for work to be performed in the operating areas of the plants the contractor is required to obtain a permit for that work to assure the safety of the plant and persons in the area. In connection with such permits, joint surveys may be conducted and, when the work has been completed, it is tested by Union Carbide employees, alone or in conjunc- tion with employees of the contractor. Before any welder employed by a contractor is permitted to perform any welding in the plant, he is tested by Union Carbide employees. Contractor supervisors and, at times, rank-and- file employees attend safety meetings conducted by Union Carbide safety engineers. 4 Nonunion contractors are referred to by Union Carbide officials as "'merit contractors." 5. Labor relations 101 The Union Carbide employees at the Taft plant are not represented by a union. The employees of Westinghouse, during the period of its maintenance contract with Union Carbide, were represent- ed by AFL-CIO unions, including respondent. Some of the contractors performing supplemental maintenance services for Union Carbide since the expira- tion of the Westinghouse contract are under union contracts and some are not.4 The three contractors involved in this case, Circle, Delta, and Union Services, are all nonunion. 6. The gates As stated above, there is a wire fence along the northern side of the plant property, separating it from Louisiana Highway 18, the levee and the southern side of the Mississippi River. There are 10 gates in this fence, but since November 1971 the only gates regularly in use were those marked 7, 29, 30, and 31. Union Carbide's instructions to its employees and suppliers were that they were to enter and leave the plant through Gates 7 and 29. At Gate 7 there was a sign reading "Union Carbide" and at Gate 29 there was a sign reading: "Union Carbide-Material Deliveries." 5 Gate 30 was designated by Union Carbide for use by its nonunion contractors and Gate 31 was designated for use by union contractors. Union Carbide's procedure, when awarding a contract or ordering maintenance work under an evergreen contract, was to write the contractor a letter of notification which included a direction to have its employees use a specific gate as designated in the letter. At the same time, the official who awarded the contract or ordered the work was required to send a memorandum to the head of the plant guard force informing him about the contract or work and directing him to post a sign bearing the contractor's name at the gate which it had been instructed to use. For this purpose, Union Carbide had erected, at points behind the fence and close to Gates 30 and 31, signposts consisting of three uprights in triangular formation pointing toward the fence. Signs bearing the names of the principal maintenance contractors were affixed to these signposts in duplicate, so that they could be seen from the road in either direction. Since there was room for a maximum of about 15 signs on each of the signposts, Union Carbide displayed only those signs bearing the names of the contractors most active on the plant property, changing the signs as the identity of the most active contractors changed. In accordance with this procedure, signs bearing the names of Delta and Circle, as well as other principal 5 The road passing through Gate 29 also leads to the warehouse 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nonunion contractors, were affixed to the signpost at Gate 30 and signs bearing the names of the principal union contractors were affixed to the signpost at Gate 31.6 7. The picketing At 6 a.m. on Friday, December 10, 1971, Robert A. Quinn, the union's business agent for steamfitters, and Edward Fink, its business agent for plumbers, met with seven union members at a restaurant close to the Union Carbide plant. Quinn testified that many of the union members who had worked for Westinghouse were out of work and that the union had decided to picket Circle and Delta at Gate 30. He testified that he sent several men with picket signs to Gate 7, with instructions not to picket but to observe the people entering through that gate and to report to him; that he went with four men to Gate 30 and set up the picket line. He admitted that there were "15 or 20" members of the union gathered on the levee across the road from Gate 30 but he denied that he had instructed them to be there. After the picket line had been set up at Gate 30, Quinn testified, he received reports that Circle employees were entering the plant through Gate 7, about 300 yards 'from Gate 30 and, at 6:45 a.m., he instructed his men to start picketing at that gate. Quinn further testified that he noted that the employees of the contractors listed on the signpost at Gate 30 were not using that gate 7 but were entering the plant through Gate 29 without interference by the Union Carbide guard at that gate and that he thereupon instructed that picketing be commenced at that gate also. The picket signs used at these gates, he testified, bore the name of either Circle or Delta. It was admitted that, on December 10, the sign bearing the names of Union Services, a nonunion contractor, was erroneously on the signpost at Gate 31. Quinn testified that about 6:15 a.m. on that day he noticed the Union Services sign at Gate 31 and, knowing that Union Services was nonunion, he directed that picketing commence there. The sign was moved to Gate 30 during the weekend but Quinn testified that on Monday, although he saw that the sign had been moved, he nevertheless kept the picket at Gate 31 because he saw the trucks of Union Services continuing to use that gate. Respondent continued to picket at all four gates, from 6 a.m. until about 10 a.m.8 on December 16 and 17; and, 6 The sign bearing the name "Union Services, Inc," a nonunion contractor, had been erroneously posted at Gate 31 and was there on December 10, 1971, but, as described below, it was transferred to Gate 30 soon thereafter 7 According to the transcript, Quinn's testimony was that "cars of all contractors listed on Gate 31 were not going in Gate 30," but the context indicates this to be a typographical error A On December 14, Quinn testified, one of the attorneys for Union Carbide told him that a Board agent was on his way to the plant and "was thereafter, intermittently. It was stipulated, however, that picketing occurred specifically at Gates 29 and 30 on December 29, 1971, and at all four gates,on January 5 and 6, 1972. The picket signs used on all occasions were the same: their upper portions were blank and had written on them, with markers, the name of one of the employers: Circle, Delta, or Union Services; the center portion of the sign was preprinted with the following "Substandard wages and working conditions-No dispute with any other contractors"; on the lower portion, also preprinted, was respondent's name: "Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union 60." The foregoing is Quinn's account of the picketing.9 However, uncontradicted testimony by officials of Union Carbide, Circle, and Delta added several important details. Lawrence F. Doyle, Union Carbide's employee relations manager, arrived at the plant at 5:45 a.m. on December 10 and entered without incident. At 6:15, Joseph M. Fallon, Union Carbide's assistant plant manager, arrived and saw four men at Gate 7, one displaying a picket sign, but he had no difficulty passing through that gate. At the administration building he met Doyle with Robert Perry, the superintendent of plant maintenance. In a company car the three of them drove to the western end of the plant where Gates 29, 30, and 31 are situated: they saw pickets at all three gates so they drove a bit further, made a U-turn to put themselves on the gate side of the road, and came back. At Gate 29 they found 25 or 30 men standing three deep in front of the gate, one of them holding a picket sign bearing the name of either ,Circle or Delta. Fallon left the car, walked through the group of men, and motioned to Doyle to drive the car through the gate. The pickets refused to move and the car was unable to pass. Fallon told the picket that he and the men in the car were Union Carbide employees, that they wanted to pass through the gate and asked why they were not being permitted to do so. The picket answered "no comment." Fallon and Doyle both testified that there were also 25 to 30 men with a Circle or Delta picket sign at Gate 30 and there were 15 to 20 men at Gate 31 with a Union Services picket sign. At Gate 30, they testified, the pickets refused to permit employees of the contractors assigned to.that gate to enter but they also testified that they did not observe anyone try to enter through Gate 31. The three Union Carbide executives drove back to Gate 7, entered the plant and, through the network of inside going to make me take it [the picket line] down" so he removed the pickets at about 7 45 a in. 9 Although two of the pickets. Warren G hire and Charles M. Dorr, appeared as witnesses, their testimony concerning the picketing was perfunctory and, although Dorr supplied details as hereinafter set forth, they did not modify Quinn's general description of the picketing The other witnesses who were employees or former employees did not testify concerning the picketing PLUMBERS, LOCAL 60 103 roads, drove to a point inside Gate 29 They remained there until 8:30 a.m. and both Fallon and Doyle testified that they saw a substantial number of Union Carbide employees prevented from entering the plant through that gate. It appears, however, that those Union Carbide employees prevented from entering through Gate 29 used Gate 7, where the four pickets made no effort to prevent them from passing, and that some employees of nonunion contractors also entered through Gate 7. On Monday, December 13, Doyle again arrived at the plant before 6 a.m. Instead of going in through Gate 7, the main gate, he drove directly to the west end and saw that there were about 12 men at Gate 29 and about 15 at Gates 30 and 31 He drove beyond those gates, turned around and came back to Gate 29 , where he made a right turn and was able to pass through the gate. Using internal roads, he then returned to the main gate, where he picked up Horace Thompson, one of Union Carbide's attorneys. With Thompson and Doyle in one car and Fallon in a second car, they drove out of the plant through Gate 7, turned left on Highway 18, and reached Gate 29. At this time, about 6.15 a m., there was a larger number of pickets at Gate 29, more than 30 of them , and neither Doyle's car nor Fallon's was permitted to enter, although they identified themselves as Union Carbide employees . A police officer was present but declined to assist them in passing through the gate, stating that he was assigned only to the task of maintaining the flow of traffic on the highway. Doyle, Fallon, and Thompson then parked their cars on the shoulder of the road, walked over to one of the pickets and asked him "what the problem was" The picket pointed to Quinn, who was standing on the river side of the road, and said : "Well, we just take our orders from Mr . Quinn . If you want to know anything, go and ask Mr . Quinn." They crossed the road and Doyle asked Quinn why Union Carbide employees were not being permitted to pass through Gate 29. Quinn answered that the Saints 10 had a poor game the previous day. Doyle rephrased his question and Quinn answered with a comment on Archie Manning'sii poor game. Thompson, the attorney, then asked Quinn a question and Quinn said that , since they would probably see him in court someday, there was no point in going through the questions at that time Fallon also testified that, when he reached Gate 29 and was blocked from entering through that gate , he parked his car, approached the gate on foot, and identified himself to one of the pickets as a Union Carbide employee. The pickets refused to permit him to pass and, when he asked why, the picket said that it was because "Union Carbide is hiring people." He then asked another picket the same question and was referred to Quinn . He participated in the conversation described by Doyle and testified that, when he asked Quinn why Union Carbide employees were being 10 The New Orleans professional football team " The Saints' quarterback prevented from entering the plant through Gate 29, Quinn answered that the Saints were losing so many ball games that he was trying to getjobs for them . Fallon testified that he stayed at Gate 29 until 7:30 or 8 o'clock that morning and saw Union Carbide employees being turned away from that gate. Except for the incident , described above, in which the union removed the pickets before 8 a.m. on Tuesday, December 14, when the Union Carbide attorney told Quinn that a Board agent was on his way to the plant to compel their removal , the picketing at all four gates continued as stipulated by counsel. There is no evidence, however, that persons attempting to enter the plant through any of the gates were thereafter physically prevented from doing so With commendable foresight, the union had its pickets record the identification of all persons, with the exception of Union Carbide employees, entering through these four gates while they were on patrol . It was stipulated that, if the pickets were called as witnesses , they would testify accordingly. This data was assembled and introduced into evidence. Copies, slightly modified , are attached to the briefs and, together with the briefs, have been of great assistance in the decision of this case. The information disclosed by these schedules is discussed below. 8. Discussion and conclusions (a) The relationship between Union Carbide and the contractors Respondent has raised no question respecting the separate identities of Union Carbide, Circle, Delta, and Union Services. and these are the only employers involved in this case . The record shows that each of the contractors has a main office situated elsewhere than on Union Carbide's plant property and that each of them performs work for other establishments . There is no evidence of any financial relationship between Union Carbide and the contractors, other than the maintenance contracts , or that the contractors' employees are on Union Carbide premises except to carry out the contracts . Union Carbide's practice of supplying tools and material in connection with the performance of the contracts is economically reflected and justified in the lower payments necessary to satisfy obligations for work done under the cost-plus contacts, and the only straight money contract mentioned in the record, the building of a bridge, was based upon the lowest bid for services and material . Similarly, it was made clear that any contractor's coverage under blanket insurance policies obtained by Union Carbide was applicable to the contractors' employees only while on the Union Carbide plant property and it follows that these savings would also be reflected in reduced contract obligations. Despite respondent's argument that Union Carbide supervises the contractors' employees, the record shows, and I find, that 104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the contractors provide adequate supervision of their own employees for the performance of the contracts and that Union Carbide's overview is limited to matters of safety and adequate performance of the contracts. Nor, despite some hearsay testimony, does the record support the contention that Union Carbide exercises any control-oth- er than that required for safety reasons, as in the case of the welders-over the contractors' choice of employees.12 It follows, therefore, and I find, that Union Carbide is not a joint employer with Circle, Delta, or Umon Services.i3 The foregoing conclusion is based upon respondent's factual contentions. Respondent's contention that, as a matter of law, "Circle, Delta, Umon Services and Union Carbide together constitute one whole unified employer ... and consequently the property of Umon Carbide became the situs of the dispute with Circle, Delta and Union Services" is based principally upon the argument that the dispute herein presents "the opposite side of the coin" of the decision of the Supreme Court in the General Electric case.14 While respondent's brief does not explain the meaning of the "opposite side of the coin" phrase or the implication it would have me draw from it, there is no doubt that there is a limited and superficial similarity between the General Electric case and this one in that the background of the union activity in both cases is the same: both cases involve picketing at a production plant in which some of the maintenance services necessary for production are pro- cured through contracts with other employers. In both cases, also, the picketing by the union charged with unfair labor practices was carried on at all the gates to the plant, notwithstanding that the use of certain gates had been restricted to employees of the maintenance contractors. The similarity, however, ends there. A major difference between the two cases is that, in the General Electric case, the picketing union represented the production employees of the General Electric Company, the operator of the plant, and it was engaged in a strike against that company. One of the gates to the plant had long been reserved for the exclusive use of employees of the maintenance contractors and it was only when the picketing had been extended to that reserved gate that it became necessary to determine whether such picketing was primary and lawful or whether it was unlawfully directed at employees of employers neutral to the dispute and, therefore, violative of Section 8(b)(4)(A) of the Act. While the court's analysis of the problem and its statement of the controlling considerations constitutes a landmark decision in the law applicable to common situs picketing; i.e., "where two employers were performing separate tasks at a common situs," at 676-677, it noted, however, that the 12 Respondent' s argument that Union Carbide, "by requiring the contractors to live up to the terms of their bid limits wages and fringe benefits available to the contractors' employees" thereby "unifies" Union Carbide and the contractor, is not supported by the record and is rejected as specious 13 Oil, Chemical etc, Workers Union, AFL-CIO, et at (Firestone Synthetic Rubber etc , Co). 173 NLRB 1244, 1245 11 Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO v NLRB B. 366 U S 667 (1961) 15 Neither of the other cases cited by respondent is persuasive In Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers etc (Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Latex Co ), owner of the premises, where it was the primary disputant, could not immunize its premises from picketing by erecting separate gates for deliveries etc., and that the "key to the problem is found in the type of work that is being performed by those who use the separate gate." The court carried its reasoning a step further by noting that the Board's rationale concerning neutral employers was applied "only to situations where the independent workers were performing tasks unconnected to the normal opera- tions of the struck employer-usually construction work on his buildings" (p. 680). It was this type of contractor which the court apparently had in mind in calling it a common situs case and approving the Board's finding of a violation of the section. In other words, the Supreme Court saw this case as a typical "common situs" case. Almost as an afterthought, however, the court pointed out that there was an aspect of the situation before it which had apparently not been taken into account by either the Board or the court below- i.e., that if the picketed "contractors' gate" was used "by employees of independ- ent contractors who performed conventional maintenance work necessary to the normal operations of General Electric, the use of the gate would have been a mingled one outside the bar of 8(b)(4)(A) (pp. 681-682)" and the standard to be applied would not be the one applicable to common situs situations . To determine the extent of the use of the picketed gate by such contractors, the Supreme Court ordered the case remanded to the Board. On remand, the Board held that all of the affected contractors were engaged in work necessary for the normal operations of the General Electric Company and that, therefore, the picket- ing at the contractors' gate was primary. In this case, contrary to the situation in the General Electric case, the dispute of the respondent is not with the operator of the plant, but with only three of its many maintenance contractors. Accordingly, the union cannot lawfully claim that its picketing at the gates other than the one assigned for the use of the contractors with whom it was engaged in disputes was primary picketing and immune from the proscription of Section 8(b)(4)(u)(B), unless it can establish that the plant property was also the primary place of business of the three contractors with whom it is engaged in disputes. As stated above, I find no support for this contention as a matter of fact and, in the General Electric case, I find no support for it as a matter of law.15 Since it is not established that the plant property of Union Carbide was also the primary situs of the union's dispute with Circle; Delta, and Union Services, it follows that it became the situs of that dispute only when and to the extent that the employees of these contractors came to 173 NLRB 1244, it was the Firestone plant which was on strike and the work of the contractor whose gate was picketed was found to be engaged in "related work" within the meaning of the General Electric decision, making the picketing primary In Laborers Union Local 1290 (Walters Foundation, Inc), 195 NLRB No 71, the union's dispute was with one of the subcontractors at the construction site but the Board dismissed the complaint because the picketing at a place other than the reserved gate was carried on for only 4 hours and resulted from an ambiguous notice by the general contractor of a change in the location of the gate reserved to the subcontractor PLUMBERS, LOCAL 60 work at the Union Carbide plant. At those times, I hold, the plant became a "common situs" and the validity of the union's activities must be determined in accordance with the standards applicable to such situations. (b) The common situs picketing The rules of decision in cases of picketing at a common situs are now well defined: the precepts stated by the Board in the Moore Dry Dock case 16 and subsequent cases have received widespread judicial approval, including that of the Supreme Court in the General Electric case. Accordingly, there appears to be no need, at this time and in this Decision, for comment on either the legal philoso- phy underlying the rule or on aspects thereof not pertinent to this case. As originally stated by the Board, the rule is as follows: When a secondary employer is harboring the situs of a dispute between a union and a primary employer, the right of neither the union to picket nor of the secondary employer to be free from picketing can be absolute. The enmeshing of premises and situs qualifies both rights. In 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 condi- tions: (a) The picketing is strictly limited to times when the situs of dispute is located on the secondary employer's premises; (b) at the time of the picketing the primary employer is engaged in its normal business at the situs; (c) the picketing is limited to places reasonably close to the location of the situs, and (d) the picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the primary employer. (Footnotes omitted: 92 NLRB at p. 549) Although the four conditions set forth by the Board in its Moore Dry Dock decision do not constitute an absolute test for the purpose of determining, by mechanical application, the lawfulness or unlawfulness of picketing at a common situs, examination of the union's compliance or noncom- pliance with the stated conditions is nevertheless a necessary initial step in determining whether such picket- ing was carried on with an object of exerting pressure on neutral parties and thus unlawfully enmeshing them in the dispute. In this case, however, the union planned and executed its activities with great care and, it appears, with thoroughly competent legal advice. There are few, if any, of the collateral statements or acts which sometimes IS Sailors ' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Co), 92 NLRB 547 17 See Laborers Union Local 1290 (Walters Foundation, Inc), 195 NLRB No 71 i8 It appears that the basis for the union 's dispute with Circle and Delta Iron was in the fact that Westinghouse Maintenance , the earlier contractor with Union Carbide for most of the maintenance work , had employed members of the union under a collective-bargaining contract. but that Circle and Delta did not The involvement of Union Services in this case appears to have been somewhat accidental , growing out of the initial placement of the Union Services sign at Gate 31, reserved for union contractors , although Union Services had recently terminated its contract with the union , and out 105 contradict the formal picketing and thereby evidence an improper purpose despite apparently proper picketing. Accordingly, the legality of respondent's picketing herein can, and shall, be determined on its adherence to the Board's standards for common situs picketing 17 Applying the Moore Dry Dock criteria to the union's picketing in this case, it appears that, with respect to condition "(d)," there is no question but that the picket signs used by the union in this case clearly disclosed that its dispute was with Circle, Delta, and Union Services.18 Furthermore, although it was testified that one of the pickets referred to "hiring by Union Carbide," there is no substantive evidence that the union made any statements or performed any acts either negating the fact that its dispute was with the specific employers named on its picket signs or implying that its picketing was, in fact, directed against any other employer. i9 Similarly, there is no doubt that the contractors were, when on Union Carbide's property, engaged in their normal business there and that, therefore, condition "(b) was satisfied. With respect to condition "(a)," Union Carbide makes the argument that, since the contractors' employees did not begin work until 7:30 a.m. and a substantial number of Union Carbide employees arrived before 7 a.m., the inference must be drawn that the picketing, which began at 6:15 a.m., was not confined to times when the contractors' employees were at the plant and that it was, therefore, directed against Union Carbide employees. However, Joseph M. Fallon, Union Carbide's assistant plant manag- er having responsibility for maintenance, engineering, and for three of the processing units, testified that Union Carbide's day-shift employees, as well as those of Circle and Delta, are scheduled to work from 7:30 a.m. until 4 p.m. Although witnesses testified to times of their own arrival ranging from 5:45 to 7:30 a.m., I rely upon Fallon's testimony as representing the standard and I find that both groups of employees were required to be on the premises during the same period. There is evidence that individuals in both groups of employees reported prior to the commencement of their working hours and there is no evidence justifying an inference that the early commence- ment of the picketing was intended to reach Union Carbide employees rather than employees of Circle and Delta. Union Services' employees, it appears, reported first to their home office in New Orleans at 8 a.m., so that their of the continued use of Gate 31 by employees of Union Services after the sign was moved to Gate 30 Notwithstanding the vagueness concerning the union's position vis-a-vis Union Services, it is assumed, for the purposes of this case, that Union Services and the union were engaged in a labor dispute 19 There is evidence concerning statements by pickets at Gate 29, including references to "hiring." that would have required discussion if the pickets were justified in their presence there with proper signs (see Superior Derrick Corp v N L R B, 273 F 2d 891 (C A 5. 1960)) Since it is held that the picketing at that gate was. in itself, violative of the Act, such discussion is not necessary 106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD arrival at the plant would not occur until after that time, but the considerations applying to the picketing at Gate 31, it will be seen, are different from those applying to Gates 7 and 29. Accordingly, I find that the picketing did not violate the requirement that it be "strictly limited to times when the situs of the dispute is located on the secondary employer's premises" and I find that it was so limited. The foregoing determinations leave for discussion condition "(c)," which requires that the picketing "be limited to places reasonably close to the location of the situs " Board Member Fanning, concurring with the Board's decision in the General Electric case, stated that in reaching his conclusion he relied principally on the decision in Moore Dry Dock and that. Applying the four principles of the Moore Dry Dock case to the instant case, I must conclude that the picketing at gate 3-A, which was used exclusively by employees of neutral employers, was not reasonably close to the situs of the labor dispute with General Electric and that picketing at this gate did not clearly disclose that the dispute was only with General Electric . . . , (123 NLRB at 1553.) Since the Board's decision did not cite Moore Dry Dock as its authority and the Supreme Court opinion deals with that decision in detail, it is a fair inference that Board Member Fanning's opinion was considered by the Su- preme Court as part of the Board's rationale 20 Accordingly, since Gate 30 was reserved for use by, among others, Circle, Delta, and Union Services, that gate is the point on the common situs "reasonably close to the situs of the labor dispute," and it is at that point that the union is entitled to direct its picketing at the employees of those employers with which it was engaged in a labor dispute. There is no contention in this case by the General Counsel that the union's picketing at Gate 30 indicated an effort by the union improperly to enmesh neutrals in its dispute: at that point the picketing must be considered as primary picketing, any involvement of neutrals who come to that place being incidental.21 A general description of the picketing has been set forth. Quinn testified that, on the morning of December 10, as he and the members of the union moved west along the highway in front of the plant, they left four members and a picket sign at Gate 7, the main gate. He further testified that, after they began picketing at Gate 30, he received reports that Circle employees were entering the plant through Gate 7 so he directed that the picketing begin at that gate also. When he saw that employees of contractors listed at Gate 30 were not using that gate but were using Gate 29, he instituted the picketing at Gate 29. Discovery of the Union Services name plate posted at Gate 31, he 20 See N L R B v General Drivers & Dairy Employees, (Local No 563) [Fox Valley Suppliers Assn J, 440 F 2d 354 (C A 7), citing Moore Dry DocA and also equating improper picketing at a reserved gate with failure to confine common situs picketing to places "reasonably close to the location of the situs " 21 N L R B v International Rice Milling Co, 341 U S 665 22 The picketing at Gate 31 is discussed separately below 23 Respondent's brief states that the union continued to picket at Gate 7 "since it was reported that employees were coming out of the gate to testified, led to the commencement of picketing there. It was conceded that the picketing at all four gates continued, at intervals, into January. Respondent contends that its picketing at the three gates other than Gate 30 was justified: (i} by the failure of Union Carbide to enforce its assignments of gates, (ii) by the fact that the employees of several contractors were not utilizing the gates to which they were assigned, and (iii) by the use of those other gates by employees of the contractors with which it had labor disputes. The relevance of the first and second of these contentions escapes me with reference to Gates 7 and 29: 22 if Union Carbide's inadequate enforcement of its gate assignments had resulted in substantial and continued use of Gates 7 and 29 by employees of Circle, Delta, and Union Services, respondent's picketing of those gates would have been permissible primary picketing directed at those employees.23 The substance of the result attained by Union Carbide, not the adequacy of its effort, in keeping employees of Circle, Delta, and Union Services from using those gates determines the lawfulness of the union's picketing. Similarly, I reject as irrelevant the union's argument that because contractors-other than Circle, Delta, and Union Services-failed to use at all times the gates to which they were assigned, the union was justified in picketing Gates 7 and 29. A schedule of gate entries by vehicles and by persons other than Union Carbide employees was received in evidence under a stipulation that, if the union called as witnesses the members who recorded the data, they would testify to these facts The General Counsel limited his concession to actual persons observed entering through the gates and he declined to stipulate that passenger vehicles, claimed by the union's gate observers to contain employees of the contractors in the dispute, contained such employees unless specifically identified. The General Counsel, counsel for respondent, and counsel for Union Carbide all attached to their briefs copies of the schedule in evidence somewhat modified as to form. The modified schedule attached by counsel for respondent to his brief contains descriptions of two passenger vehicles by license numbers alone, with a claim in the brief that such motor vehicles transported employees of one of the disputing contractors into the plant. In the absence of testimonial identification of the occupants I am required, by the limits of the stipulation, to ignore these entries-and I do so. The schedules attached to their briefs by the General Counsel and by counsel for Union Carbide appear to conform to the stipulation and the data contained in them is accepted as an accurate reflection of the stipulated testimony. According to their schedules, there were 48 incidents in which identifiable vehicles entered the plant property in work on the levee across the road " The testimony of Quinn, at the record reference in the brief, was that his observers "had seen at different times several employees coming out of Gate 7 to do work on the river So we continued to picket " There is no evidence that the employees to whom this reference is made were employees of Circle, Delta, or Union Services, and there is no justification for an inference that they were Respondent 's brief also states that several applicants for employment with Circle and Delta entered the plant through Gate 7 The record shows, however, that none of these incidents occurred during the picketing PLUMBERS, LOCAL 60 107 violation of gate assignments. In addition, Warren Pitre, a union picket at Gate 7, testified that about 6:45 a.m. on December 10, the first day of the picketing, he saw Stanley Overstreet, project superintendent of Delta, drive through that gate. He also testified that at about the same time he saw Cookie Schexnayder, one of Circle's foremen, drive through that gate with another man in his car who was wearing a yellow "hard hat" marked with a large "C." 24 Analysis of these 50 incidents, however, shows that only 9 of them involved employees of Circle, Delta, or Union Services and, therefore, are relevant to the decision of this case.25 The remaining nine gates violations do involve Circle, Delta, and Union Services. They consist of the two incidents described by the picket at Gate 7, one in which a Delta supervisor, and one in which a Circle supervisor carrying an employee passenger, passed through that gate early in the morning on December 10. Another of these incidents occurred on December 21 when a vehicle belonging to Delta passed through Gate 29 instead of Gate 30. The final six incidents involved vehicles belonging to Union Services and these incidents are discussed separate- ly hereafter. Stanley Overstreet testified that he arrived at the plant on December 10 at 7 a.m. and tried to enter through Gate 30 but the pickets and other men at the gate, about 30 of them, completely blocked the gate and physically prevent- ed him from entering. He testified that he went to Gate 7, entered the plant and talked with some Carbide officials, after which he left the plant, again using Gate 7. About 8:30 that morning, he testified, he entered the plant through Gate 30. Overstreet's testimony was not contradic- ted and there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of his account. Since it appears that his first effort to pass through Gate 30 was blocked by respondent's "observers," the union cannot justify its picketing of Gate 7 by the fact that it was used by this Circle employee when he was prevented by union agents from using the gate reserved for his entry. To permit the union thereafter to picket at Gate 7 on the basis of this incident would permit it to gain an advantage as a result of its own misconduct. There is no evidence accounting for Schexnayder's entry through Gate 7 at about the same time but there is ample evidence that the pickets at Gate 30 were not permitting anyone to pass through the gate at that time. On the basis of that evidence I infer that Schexnayder was similarly thwarted in an effort to enter through Gate 30. In any event, this single entry by Schexnayder must be considered as de minrmis and insufficient to justify respondent in picketing at Gate 7. The other incident is an isolated entry by a Delta truck through Gate 29 on December 21, which I also find de minimis with respect to Delta and insufficient to justify respondent's picketing at Gate 29. The six incidents in which trucks of Union Services entered the plant through Gate 31, however, stand on an entirely different footing. It is to be recalled that, on December 10, the Union Services name plate was on the signpost at Gate 31 and that Quinn, when he noticed it there, directed that Gate 31 be picketed. Although the name plate was transferred to Gate 30 over the weekend, Quinn testified that Union Services trucks continued to enter through Gate 31. The schedule shows that Union Services trucks made entries through Gate 31 on December 13 and 15 and on January 4, 6, 10, and 11. This series of entries through Gate 31, together with the fact that there are no notations of entries by Union Services trucks at any other gate, shows a deliberate and consistent course of conduct by that contractor in disregard of Union Carbide's designation of Gate 30 for its use. Under these circum- stances, I find, respondent's picketing at Gate 31 was at a point reasonably close to the situs of its dispute with Union Services and complied with the conditions set forth in the Moore Dry Dock decision. From the foregoing discussion it appears, and I find, that the union's picketing at Gates 7 and 29 was not directed at Circle, Delta, and Union Services, the contractors with which it was engaged in labor disputes, but constituted inducement and encouragement of employees of Union Carbide and other employers to engage in strikes and work stoppages, with an object of forcing or requiring Union Carbide and other employers to cease doing business with Circle, Delta, and Union Services. By this picketing, therefore, the union violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. This same picketing constituted restraint and coercion of Union Carbide and the other employers and, since it had the same object, also constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) thereof. 9. The effect of the unfair labor practices upon commerce The activities of respondent set forth in section 6, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Union Carbide, Circle, Delta, Union Services, and other employ- ers at the Union Carbide plant, described in sections 2, 4, and 5, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the 24 Some of the details in Pore's testimony are in conflict and respondent's brief does not follow the record with absolute accuracy The facts set forth above, however, substantially reflect the record and I so find 25 Of the other 41 incidents, 29 were occasions on which vehicles belonging to contractors which should have entered through Gate 30, and one in which it should have entered through Gate 31, entered instead through Gate 7 or 29 While these violations of gate assignments avoided exposure of these neutral employees to the picketing to which they would have been exposed at Gate 30, it cannot be said that the union had a vested interest in subjecting these neutrals to the inducement of their picket line Just as a picket line may constitute permissible primary activity despite any incidental effect it may have on neutrals who come to that point, as in the Rice Milling and similar cases , so the failure of other neutrals to subject themselves to such "incidental" effect cannot serve as cause for complaint by the picketing union It must constantly be borne in mind that one of the purposes of the Act is to shield neutrals, in so far as possible, from the effect of actions by the parties to the dispute There were eight incidents in which vehicles assigned to use Gate 7 or 29, and three incidents in which vehicles assigned to use Gate 31 , entered, instead, through Gate 30, where the union was entitled to picket The fact that these neutrals to the disputes were unnecessarily exposed to permissible picketing certainly cannot justify an extension of picketing to the other gates 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. 10. The remedy Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to remedy the unfair labor practices and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record herein, I state the following. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 60, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sections 2(5) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. 2. Union Carbide, Circle, Delta, Union Services, and other contractors performing maintenance work for, or delivering supplies to, Union Carbide's plant at Taft, Louisiana, are persons engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. 3. By picketing at Gates 7 and 29 and thereby inducing and encouraging employees of Union Carbide and its contractors and suppliers to engage in strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to perform services, with an object of forcing said employers and persons to cease doing business with Circle, Delta, Union Services, and with each other, respondent has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B), and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Union Carbide and its contractors and suppliers with an object of requiring them to cease doing business with Circle, Delta, Union Services, and with each other, respondent has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(u)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended 26 ORDER United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 60, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Picketing at Gates 7 and 29 of the plant of Union Carbide Corporation Chemicals and Plastics Division at Taft, Louisiana, or, in any other manner, inducing or encouraging individuals employed by that company, or by any of its suppliers and contractors except Circle, Inc , Delta Iron Works, Inc., and Union Services, to engage in, strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require their respective employers to cease doing business with Circle, Inc., Delta Iron Works, Inc., Union Services, or with each other. (b) In any manner threatening, restraining, or coercing Union Carbide Corporation Chemicals and Plastics Divi- sion or any of its suppliers or contractors, except Circle, Inc., Delta Iron Works, Inc., and Union Services, with an object of forcing or requiring Union Carbide Corporation Chemicals and Plastics Division or any of its suppliers or contractors to cease doing business with Circle, Inc., Delta Iron Works, Inc., Union Services, or with each other. 2. Take the following affirmative action, hereby found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and meeting halls, and at all places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 27 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 15, after being duly signed by respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail signed copies of the notice to the Regional Director for Region 15, for posting by Union Carbide Corporation Chemicals and Plastics Division or any of its suppliers or contractors including Circle, Inc., Delta Iron Works, Inc., and Union Services, said employers or persons being willing, at all locations where notices to their employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply here- with.28 3. The complaint, insofar as it alleges conduct in violation of the Act which is not found by the Decision to constitute an unfair labor practice, is hereby dismissed. 26 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 27 In the event that the Board's 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 " Is In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " O 110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial at which all parties were given an opportunity to present evidence and argument, the National Labor Relations Board has decided that we committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by picketing at Gates 7 and 29 of the Taft plant of Union Carbide Corporation Chemicals and Plastics Division, and has ordered us to post this notice. We intend to carry out the order of the Board and abide by the following: WE WILL NOT picket at Gates 7 and 29 of the Taft plant of Union Carbide Corporation Chemicals and Plastics Division, or otherwise induce or encourage any person employed by Union Carbide Corporation Chemicals and Plastics Division or any of its suppliers or contractors except Circle, Inc., Delta Iron Works, Inc., or Union Services, to engage in a strike or to refuse, in the course of his employment to use, transport, or work on any goods, or to perform any services; and WE WILL NOT in any manner threaten, coerce, or restrain Union Carbide Corporation Chemi- cals and Plastics Division or any of its contractors or suppliers, except Circle, Inc., Delta Iron Works, Inc., and Union Services; where in either case an object thereof is forcing or requiring Union Carbide Corpora- tion Chemicals and Plastics Division, its suppliers or contractors, to cease doing business with Circle, Inc., Delta Iron Works, Inc., Union Services, or with each other. Dated By UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL UNION No. 60, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) 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 Board 's Office, Plaza Tower Building, Suite 2700, 1001 Howard Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Telephone 504-527-6361.