Carpenters Local 316 (Thornhill Construction)

CARPENTERS LOCAL 316 (THORNHILL CONSTRUCTION) Carpenters Local 316, United Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and Lauren J. Thornhill d/b/a Thornhill Construc- tion and Gould Trust d/b/a Gould Center and The Osborn Company, Inc. Cases 32-CC-335, 32-CC-385, and 32-CC-394 26 February 1987 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS STEPHENS AND CRACRAFT On 8 May 1981 Administrative Law Judge Gerald A. Wacknov issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a memoran- dum in support of the judge's decision. 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, memorandum, and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rul- ings, findings, and conclusions' and to adopt the recommended Order. In Case 32-CC-394 of the instant consolidated proceeding, the judge concluded, inter alia, that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act when its business agent, Rudy Valente, in- duced and encouraged individuals employed by a neutral subcontractor on a common construction site to stop work and walk off the job in honor of a picket line established by another union in further- ance of that Union's primary labor dispute with the general contractor on the construction project. We agree. In Plumbers Local 444 (T S. Hanson Plumbing), 277 NLRB 1231 (1985), the Board concluded that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by fining two members employed by a neutral sub- contractor because they crossed and worked behind a lawful primary picket line established by another union at a common construction jobsite. Although the specific section of the Act that was alleged to have been violated in T S. Hanson- Section 8(b)(1)(A)-is different from the section of the Act alleged to have been violated in the instant case-Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B)-the underlying issue presented in T S. Hanson is presented again here: whether a union may induce its members to honor a lawful primary picket line where those members work for a neutral employer on a common situs at ' At the hearing, the parties stipulated that the General Counsel was not alleging in Case 31-CC-335 that the Respondent's picketing at the neutral reserved gate between 27 August and 4 September 1980 was un- lawful Consequently, we do not affirm the judge's implicit finding that such picketing during that period of time was unlawful. 81 which no valid system of reserved gates is in effect. Like the fines in T S. Hanson, the request of the Respondent's business representative that indi- viduals employed by Cal Bay, an undisputedly neu- tral employer, honor the primary union's picket line by leaving the jobsite clearly discloses an ob- jective proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(B)-to cause the neutral employer, Cal Bay, to cease doing busi- ness with the primary employer, Osborn. The Re- spondent knew that Cal Bay was a neutral in the Laborers' primary dispute with Osborn . A natural and apparent object of the Respondent's request that individuals employed by Cal Bay honor the Laborers' picket line by leaving the jobsite was to induce and encourage them to stop working for the neutral Cal Bay and in turn cause Cal Bay to cease doing business with Osborn.2 Accordingly, we conclude that the Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act as alleged in this regard.3 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Carpenters Local 316, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, San Jose, Califor- nia, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order. 2 See T. S. Hanson, supra, 277 NLRB 1231, Sheet Metal Workers Local 252 (S. L. Miller), 166 NLRB 262 (1967), also cited in T. S. Hanson. 3 In affirming the judge's finding of a violation under these circum- stances, we do not rely on Teamsters Local 505 (Carolina Lumber), 130 NLRB 1438 (1961), cited by the judge The distinction drawn in that case between "low level" and "high level" supervisors, in regard to the scope of the term "individual" in Section 8(b)(4)(i) of the Act, was rejected by the Supreme Court in NLRB Y. Servette Inc., 377 U S 46 (1964) There the Court held that the applicability of Section 8(b)(4)(i) to su- pervisors turns on whether the union's appeal to the supervisor is to cease performing his employment services, or is an appeal for the exer- cise of the supervisor's managerial discretion In the instant case, we find that the Respondent's business agent Valente unlawfully appealed to Cal Bay's foreman Mobley to cease performing his employment services for Cal Bay. Bernard Hopkins, Esq., for the General Counsel. Michael B. Roger, Esq. (Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg and Roger), of San Francisco, California, for the Respond- ent. Mark R. Thierman, Esq., of San Francisco, California, for Thornhill Construction Co. and The Osborn Com- pany, Inc. Michael Riccitiello, Esq. (Littler, Mendelson, Fwastiff & Tichy), of San Francisco, California, for Gould Trust d/b/a Gould Center and Century West Builders. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GERALD A. WACKNOv, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to notice, a hearing with respect to this matter 283 NLRB No. 16 82 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was held before me in San Jose, California, on January 8, 1981. The initial charges in Cases - 32-CC-335, 32-CC- 385, 32-CC-394, and 32-CB-795 were filed on July 10; August 18, September 24, 1979, and July 10, 1980,1 re- spectively. Thereafter, various complaints and amendments there- to were issued on July 31, September 17, 23, and 30, and December 18, by the Regional` Director for Region 32 of the `National Labor Relations Board (Board), alleging violations by United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Join- ers of America, AFL-CIO,'Local 316 (Respondent), of Section 8(b)(1)(A)2 and (4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The parties were afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce relevant evidence. Since the close of the hearing, briefs have been received from the General Counsel, counsel for Respondent, and counsel represent- ing both Thornhill Construction Company and the Osborn Company, Inc. On the entire record, and based on my observation of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs submitted, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is admitted that the Union is, and- has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts 1. Thornhill Construction Co. (Case 32-CC-335) In June, Thornhill Construction Co.,3 a framing con- tractor, was hired as a- contractor on a condominium project in San Jose, California: On June 19, prior to the commencement of Thornhill's work on the job, Re- spondent's business representative, Rudy Valente, -visited the jobsite and advised David Larimer, president of New West Associates, owner of the condominium project, that Thornhill was unwilling to sign a successor contract with the Union and that Larimer could, therefore, expect picketing on the job when Thornhill began work. On July 9,, the day that Thornhill commenced work on the site, Valente appeared at the jobsite and ques- ' All dates or time periods herein are within 1980 unless otherwise specified. 2 Following the close of the hearing, the parties entered into a settle- ment agreement involving this matter, namely, Case 32-CB-795, and on March 23, 1981, I issued an order serving ,cases, remanding Case 32-CB- 795 to the Regional Director for purposes of compliance with the terms and provisions of the settlement agreement a Thornhill Construction Co. is a_sole proprietorship with its principal place of business in San Jose, California In the course and conduct of its business operations, Thornhill Construction Co. annually provides goods and services in excess of $50,000 to customers meeting one of the Board's jurisdictional standards other than the indirect inflow or indirect outflow standard. It is admitted, and I find, that Thornhill Construction Co is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act tioned several Thornhill employees about their lack of union membership. Later that day, according to the testimony of Larimer, the following conversation occurred between Larimer, Larry Thornhill, owner of Thornhill Construction Co., and Valente: And he [Valente] turned to me and he said, what are you going to do? And I said, well, I'm just trying to build my construction project. And I said, what are you going to do? And he said, all I want to do is get Larry [Thornhill] to sign. And then he turned to Larry and pointed at me, and said this man's going to sue you if you can't finish. And I shook my head at that. And then Rudy [Valente] looked out the window and he said,-he looked out the door and he said, I'm not going to give Larry shit on this job. I'm not going to be easy on him.--I want him to sign the agreement, and I want the job to be finished by Union carpenters. We want a-the Unions will all stick together and if Larry-I have the pickets right out in the car, I'll bring them out right now. And your job won't go one step further than it is right now. Then there ensued some conversation between Valente and Larimer regarding obtaining a union framing con- tractor for the job. During this portion of the conversa- tion, Valente told Larimer that the job would never get finished if Thornhill did not sign the agreement. Larimer indicated an intention to establish a reserve gate system, and testified that Valente replied: [t]hat doesn't matter. Gates don't matter. We don't picket gates, we picket job sites. And I have the pickets right out in the car and they'll be here to- morrow unless Larry signs. The next morning, July 10, Respondent's pickets ar- rived at the jobsite, and shortly thereafter a reserve gate system was established by Larimer. Respondent's agents, including Valente, nevertheless picketed in front of the neutral gate reserved for employees, personnel, and visi- tors of persons other than Thornhill. On the same day, Larimer sent a telegram to Respondent, advising that a reserve gate system had been established, and requesting that the Union confine its picketing to the gate reserved for Thornhill. Nevertheless, Respondent picketed exclu- sively at the neutral gate from July 10 to July 14. Thereafter, Respondent primarily confined' its picket- ing activity to the gate reserved for Thornhill. However, when a vehicle or person would approach and enter the project through the neutral gate, the pickets would walk over to that gate,, write- down the vehicle's license number, and remain there while the delivery was being completed. I credit Larimer's unrebutted testimony that such conduct continued prior to August 27. On August 27, Larimer used a forklift to bring lumber for Thornhill through the neutral gate, Thereupon, the, Union commenced picketing the neutral gate, and on September 4, 1980, the Union was advised by telegrams that there would be no further tainting of the reserve CARPENTERS LOCAL 316 (THORNHILL CONSTRUCTION) 83 gate system. Thereafter, picketing continued at both gates until October 1980 when an injunction was granted by the United States district court, enjoining picketing at the neutral gate. Picketing at the gate reserved for Thornhill continued until late November, and ceased fol- lowing the outcome of a decertification election until late November, and ceased following the outcome of a decer- tification election among Thornhill's employees. Valente was not called as a witness in this proceeding. 2. Gould Trust d/b/a Gould Center (Case 32-CC- 385) On August 11, Respondent's business representative, Elmer Phillips, approached Mark Allen, job superintend- ent for Century West Builders, Inc.,4 the general con- tractor for a restaurant construction project in San Jose, California. Phillips asked Allen whether certain employ- ees who were employees of Construction Trends, the carpentry subcontractor, were union members. Allen told Phillips to ask the employees directly. On learning that the employees were not union members, Respondent commenced picketing the project the following day. The picket sign was attached to a mobile home vehicle that was parked at the main entrance to the shopping center, known as the Gould Shopping Center and owned by E. Gould, where the restaurant construction was taking place. The picket sign stated that E. Gould fails to meet established wages and benefits established by the Carpenters Local 316. Reserved gates were established on the second day of the picketing. A telegram sent to the Union about August 14, advised that gate 1 was reserved for the ex- clusive use of E. Gould and Century West Builders, Inc. and warned the Union to confine its picketing to gate 1. However, only Gould',s name initially appeared on the sign at gate 1, and sometime thereafter, Century West's name appeared. Finally, on August 28, Construction Trend's name was also placed on the reserved gate sign at gate 1. Also on this latter date, Century West sent a telegram to the Union advising that` Construction Trends and its suppliers were to use gate 1 exclusively. Appar- ently, the Union picketed at gate 1 during all times mate- rial herein. In addition to picketing at gate 1, however, the Union did not, immediately remove its vehicle, bear- ing the aforementioned picket sign, from the main en- trance to the shopping center, some 110 feet from gate 1. The vehicle remained at this location for about a week following August '14. In late August, Century West's job Superintendent, Mark Allen, unlocked gate 2, the gate apparently re- served for employers other than Gould, Century West, and Construction Trends, in order to permit the concrete contractor, J. C. Lomas Company, to enter the site. Thereupon, according to Allen, who observed but did not overhear the ' conversation, Business Representative Phillips and the individual who had been picketing at 4 Century West Builders, Inc is a California corporation with offices located in California, And annually performs construction services valued in excess of $50,000 for customers located outside the State of California It is admitted; and I find, that Century West Builders, Inc is an employer engaged in commerce Within the meaning of Sec 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act gate l approached and spoke to an employee of J. C. Lomas near gate 2. Immediately thereafter, the employee approached Allen and advised him that he was leaving the project as he feared being fined if he came on the job, and presented Allen with a pamphlet that had been given to him by Phillips. Allen read the pamphlet that he paraphrased at the hearing as stating that "when a good union man sees a picket, he doesn't ask questions but just leaves." Thereupon, Allen, in the presence of Phillips, suggested that the employee call his employer on the CB radio in the truck. The employee contacted J. C. Lomas on the CB and explained the situation to him. Then there ensued a conversation between Phillips and Lomas over the CB. Allen overheard Phillips, who appeared angry, mention some sort of agreement between Lomas and Phillips and accused Lomas of breaking the agreement. Phillips, according to the uncontroverted testimony of Allen, said that he had a long memory, and the matter would not be forgotten. Phillips was not called as a wit- ness. 3. The Osborn Company, Inc. (Case 32-CC--394) In mid-July, the Laborers Union picketed The Osborn Company, Inc.,5 the general contractor at a condomini- um construction site in San Jose, California. The carpen- try subcontractor on the job was Cal Bay Builders with whom Respondent maintained a collective-bargaining re- lationship. On September 2, Rudy Valente, Respondent's business agent, approached Cal Bay Builders' working foreman, Vern Mobley, and requested that Mobley and his crew honor the picket line established by the Labor- ers Union. Mobley phoned Cal Bay Builders ' general manager, Steven Fisk, and reported the matter, where- upon Fisk directed Mobley to instruct the employees to leave the jobsite, while Fisk attempted to get the matter resolved with Respondent. On the afternoon of September 2, Fisk phoned Valente and asked why Valente had requested that his employees leave the site, and how the problem could be resolved. Valente replied, according to Fisk, that there was a sanc- tioned Laborers Union picket on the job and that the matter could be resolved by Fisk's honoring of the picket line. Valente further stated that if Fisk, or appar- ently Cal Bay Builders' employees, crossed the picket line, Fisk could be subject to "further assessments." Fisk testified that Valente did not go into detail and left the matter very vague. Valente was not called as a witness. Cal Bay Builders did not work on September 2, but the carpentry crew commenced work the following day with no further incidents. 5 The Osborn Company, Inc. is a California corporation with its prin- cipal place of business located in Santa Clara, California, and is engaged in the business of real estate development and construction During the last fiscal year, Osborn performed services valued in excess of $800,000 for the United States Navy, and its operations have a substantial impact on the National Defense of the United States. It is admitted, and I find, that Osborn is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act 84 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Analysis and Conclusions 1. Thornhill Construction Co. (Case 32-CC-335) It is clear, and Respondent proffered no contrary evi- dence, that Respondent, including Respondent's business representative Rudy Valente, picketed at the neutral gate reserved for persons other than employees and suppliers of the primary employer, Thornhill Construction Com- pany. Moreover, even on belatedly moving its picket to the appropriate gate after about 4 days of picketing at the neutral gate, Respondent continued to picket the neu- tral , gate during periods when deliveries were being made through that gate. Such picketing, under the cir- cumstances, is conclusive evidence of an unlawful objec- tive. Further, Business Representative Valente's state- ment to David Larimer, an official of New West Associ- ates, a neutral employer, that reserved gates' did not matter, and that Respondent intended to picket the job- site, rather than any particular gate,' clearly constituted a threat to engage in unlawful picketing. Sailors Union (Moore Dry Dock), 92 NLRB 547, 549 (1950); Carpenters Sacramento Area District Council' (Malek Construction), 244 NLRB 890 (1979). Nor, as contended by Respondent, does the fact that New West Associates provided a job shack, electrical current, portable toilets, and water used by Thornhill and other subcontractors, and purchased finished lumber, doors, and millwork for Thornhill establish that New West Associates was an ally of Thornhill or that the two entitles thereby maintained coemployer or joint venture relationship. See Carpenters Sacramento Area District Council, supra.The cases cited by Respondent in support of its ally defenses are inapposite.6 Thus, contrary to the contention of Respondent, these cases do not establish that a neutral employer that purchases materials for and acts as a supplier of the primary employer by bringing materials onto the jobsite, thereby becomes an ally of the primary employer. Nor does the fact that the owner of New West Associ- ates used either gate for his personal ingress or egress in- validate the reserved gate system. Broadcast Employees NABET Local 31 (CBS Inc.), 237 NLRB 1370, 1378 (1978), enfd. 631 F.2d 944 (D.C: Cir. 1980); Carpenters Local 639 (American Modulars), 203 NLRB 1112, 1118 (1973). I, therefore, find that by the aforementioned conduct, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, as alleged. 2. Gould Trust d/b/a Gould Center (Case 32-CC- 385) The General Counsel maintains that Respondent's ille- gal objective is demonstrated by its failure to conform its picketing to Moore Dry Dock standards.7 In particular, 6 Operating Engineers Local 450 (Linbeck Construction), 219 NLRB 997 (1975), enfd. 550 F 2d 311 (5th Cir. 1977), Electrical Workers IBEW Local 323 (J F Hoff Electric), 241 NLRB 694 (1979), enfd 642 F2d 1266 (D C.- Cir 1980) 7 Sailors Union (Moore Dry Dock), supra the General Counsel contends that the picket sign erro- neously named Gould rather than Construction Trends as the employer with which ' the Respondent has a pri- mary labor dispute. Further, the General Counsel argues that the fact that Respondent picketed the main entrance of the Gould Shopping Center, in addition to the re- served gate set aside for Gould and others, establishes an unlawful secondary objective. I find that, given the state of the record herein, the evidence is unclear that the Respondent knew or was ever timely advised of the identity of the primary em- ployer, Construction Trends. Indeed, it appears that even several weeks after the_ reserved gates were established, Gould led Respondent to believe that Century West Builders employed the carpenters on the job and, insofar as the record shows, it was not until August 28 that the name of Construction Trends was even specifically men- tioned to Respondent. Moreover, as the telegram of August 14 directed that Respondent's picketing activity be confined only to Gould and Century West Builders, it would appear reasonable for Respondent to conclude that its continued picketing at the main entrance of the shopping center, owned by Gould was likewise permissi- ble. However, I further find that Respondent's unlawful objective has been demonstrated by the conduct of Busi- ness Representative Phillips who sought to cause an em- ployee of neutral employer. J. C. Lomas Company, the concrete contractor, to leave the job. Moreover, Phillips also threatened Lomas with breaching an agreement and, in effect, with unspecified reprisals should Lomas contin- ue pouring concrete at the site. Although Mark Allen, job superintendent for Century West Builders, did not overhear but rather merely observed the conversation between Phillips and an employee of J. C. Lomas Com- pany, and overheard only -Phillips' remarks over the CB to Lomas, the record clearly establishes that Allen, whom I credit, was a precipient witness to what tran- spired herein, and that Allen's testimony is sufficient, under the circumstances, to support the finding of a vio- lation. Respondent has presented no evidence that would negate the import of Allen's testimony. Moreover, I draw an adverse influence from Phillips' failure to testi- fy.8 I, therefore, conclude that the fair interpretation of Allen's testimony warrants the determination that Phil-' lips engaged in conduct violative of the Act, and thus find that Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and (ii)(B) of the Act as alleged. See Technical Engineer- ing Division Local 130 (National Survey Services), 204 NLRB 348 (1973); Iron Workers Local 597 (Linebeck Construction), 208 NLRB 524 (1974). 3. The Osborn Company (Case 32-CC-394) I credit the unrebutted testimony of Steven Fisk, gen- eral manager of Cal Bay Builders, a neutral employer; performing work at the construction site in question, and find that during the'September 2 telephone conversation, Respondent's business agent, Rudy Valente, in effect ac- knowledged that he'I had requested Cal Bay Builders' em- 8 Martin Luther King Sr. Nursing Center, 231 NLRB 15 fn 1 (1977) CARPENTERS LOCAL 316 (THORNHILL CONSTRUCTION) 85 ployees to leave the job earlier that day. Such a request even though directed to a low-level supervisor on the job, namely, Vern Mobley, is violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. Teamsters Local 505 (Carolina Lumber), 130 NLRB 1438 (1961). Moreover, I find coer- cive, under the circumstances Valente's unexplained ref- erence, during the same telephone conversation, of "fur- ther assessment," directed to Fisk. This is particularly true in the absence of any testimony by Valente that would tend to explain or clarify such, ambiguous lan- guage. I, therefore, find that Valente's statement consti- tuted a threat and was calculated to cause Cal Bay Builders to cease work at the site in furtherance of Re- spondent's unlawful objective. I, therefore, conclude that by the foregoing conduct Respondent has also violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act, as alleged. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Thornhill Construction Co., Century West Builders, Inc. and The Osborn Company, Inc. are employers and persons engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(1), (2), (6), and (7) and Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 2. Carpenters Local 316, United Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO is a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by New West Associates, J. C. Lomas Company, Cal Bay Builders, or other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a' strike or refusal in the course of their employent to use, manu- facture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform services; and by threatening, coercing, and re- straining the above-named persons, or other persons en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce, with an object of forcing or requiring the above- named persons to cease doing business with Thornhill Construction Co., Construction Trends, and The Osborn Company, Carpenters Local 316, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO has en- gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Carpenters Local 316, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. I shall recommend that it be or- dered to cease and desist therefrom, and that it take such affirmative action as will effectuate the purposes of the Act. The General Counsel and counsel for the various em- ployers maintain that Respondent's conduct warrants the imposition of a broad order rather than an order limited only to the employers herein. I agree, Thus, it has been found that the Respondent,' on various dates between July 10 and September 2, 1980, repeatedly engaged in clear violations of the Act affecting numerous employers and construction sites within the San Jose, California area. Under the circumstances herein, I find that Re- spondent's proclivity to violate the Act has been amply demonstated, and that, therefore, the requested remedy is clearly warranted. See Sequoia District Council c f Carpen- ters (Lattanzio Enterprises), 206 NLRB 67 (1973); Team- sters Local 945 (Newark Disposal), 232 NLRB 1 (1979), enfd. mem. 586 F.2d 835 (3d Cir. 1978). On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed9 ORDER The Respondent, Carpenters Local 316, United Broth- erhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed by New West Associates, J. C. Lomas Company, Cal Bay Builders, or any other person engaged in commerce , or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, 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 the persons, or any other person, to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business with Thornhill Construction Co., Construction Trends, or The Osborn Company. (b) In any manner threatening, coercing, or restraining New ' West Associates, J. C. Lomas Company, Cal Bay Builders or any other person engaged in commerce or in any industry affecting commerce, where an object there- of is to force or require said persons to cease using, sell- ing, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or cease doing business with, Thornhill Construction Co., Construction Trends, or The Osborn Company. (c) 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 perform any serv- ices; or threatening, coercing, or restraining any person engaged in commerce; where in either case, an object thereof is to force or require any person to cease doing business with any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting, commerce. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its office and meeting halls copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix."10 Copies of the 9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses. 10 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- Continued 86 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 Carpenters Local 316; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material: (b) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 32, signed copies of the notice in sufficient number for post- ing by the employers involved herein, should they be willing, at all locations where notices to their employees are customarily 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. 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 EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government TO ALL MEMBERS OF CARPENTERS LOCAL 316, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMER- ICA, AFL-CIO TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF NEW WEST ASSOCIATES, J. C. LOMAS COMPANY, CAL BAY BUILDERS, AND OTHER EM- PLOYERS The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT, nor will our officers, business, repre- sentatives, business agents, or anyone acting for us, what- ever his title may be, engage in or induce or encourage any individual employed by New West Associates, J. C. Lomas Company, Cal Bay Builders or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require the above-named em- ployers or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the prod- ucts of, or cease doing business with Thornhill Construc- tion Co., Construcion Trends, or The Osborn Company. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or, restrain New West Associates, J. C. Lomas Company, Cal Bay Builders, or any other employers engaged in commerce or in an in- dustry affecting, commerce where an object thereof is'to force or require the employers or any other persons en- gaged in commerce ,to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or cease doing business with,, Thornhill Construction Co., Construction Trends, or The Osborn Company. WE WILL NOT in any manner prohibited `by Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in Com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce, or induce or encourage any individual employed by any person en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce for a proscribed object. CARPENTERS LOCAL 316, UNITED BROTH- ERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO