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

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