Iron Workers Local 433 (Benchmark Contractors)

IRON `WORKERS LOCAL 433 (BENCHMARK CONTRACTORS) 1089 International Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers Local No . 433 and Benchmark Contractors , Inc. Case 21-CC-2948 24 September 1987 DECISION AND ORDER tively on July 16, and September 25, 1986, allege that International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna- mental Iron Workers Local No. 433 (Respondent or Iron Workers Local 433) violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act. Issue By MEMBERS BABSON, STEPHENS, AND CRACRAFT On 18 March 1987 Administrative Law Judge Richard D. Taplitz issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General ' Counsel filed an 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,I 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, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers Local No. 433, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order. 1 The judge found that on 9 June 1986 some picket signs at neutral gates read "Western State Builders Unfair to Iron Workers Local 433" or had the words "Local 433" partially covered with other materials The record does not indicate that Local 433 was identified on signs that day The record does reveal, however, that on 9 June 1986 Local 413 repre- sentative Ray McElvain accompanied a group of pickets covering a neu- tral gate The judge found that Benchmark's project superintendent, David Rick- etts, told the Western superintendent to leave the jobsite the morning of 9 June 1986 The record indicates Ricketts told the Western superintendent to leave the jobsite that afternoon These errors do not affect our agree- ment with the judge's analysis and conclusions Neil Warheit, Esq., for the General Counsel. Paul D. Supton Esq. (Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger & Ro- senfeld), of San Francisco, California, for the Respond- ent. James T. Winkler and Marilou F. Mirkovich, Esqs. (Atkin- son, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo), of Cerritos, Cali- fornia, for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE RICHARD D. TAPLITZ, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Los Angeles, California, on No- vember 20, 1986. The charge was filed on June 11, 1986, by Benchmark Contractors, Inc. (Benchmark). The com- plaint and Amendment to complaint, which issued respec- The primary issue is whether Iron Workers Local 433, by picketing on June 9, '10, and 11, 1986, at construction site gates reserved for neutrals, unlawfully enmeshed neutral secondary employers in a dispute that Iron Workers Local 433 had with primary employer Western State Building Enterprises (Western), in violation of Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs, which have been carefully considered, were filed on behalf of the General Counsel, Iron Workers Local 433, and Benchmark. On the entire record 1 of the case and from my obser- vation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The parties stipulated, and I find, that Western (the Company with whom Iron Workers Local 433 is alleged to have the primary dispute) is a California corporation;' that Western purchased in excess of $1 million in lumber during the past 12 months from a broker located in Cali- fornia; that that broker purchased the lumber from Oregon and Washington; that the lumber was shipped di- rectly from Oregon and Washington to Western in Cali- fornia; and that the broker never took possession of the lumber. It was further stipulated, and I find, that West- ern is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Iron Workers Local 433 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Sequence of Events Benchmark is a general contractor on a large construc- tion site known as the Lakes project in Costa Mesa, CaIi- fornia. In June 1986 Benchmark was using a number of subcontractors including concrete subcontractor Arciero Brothers, reinforcing steel contractor Franklin Steel, ma- sonry contractor A. N. Burke Masonry, concrete pile contractor Raymond International, underground storm and sewer work contractor Quesada Engineering, rough grading contractor Ron Varela Company, and wood- framing contractor Western. . 1 The unopposed motion of the General Counsel to correct the tran- script by substituting "Quesada" for "Casada" at Tr 268, L. 3, is granted. In addition the unopposed motion of the General Counsel to add the first amended charge in Case 21-CC-2950 to R Exh 3 is granted 285 NLRB No, 140 1090 DECISIONS -OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Western is a nonunion framing contractor . In addition to framing work, which involves the construction of wooden buildings, Western also erected a building crane at the Lakes project. The crane was used to lift supplies on the site . The Iron Workers Union generally claims ju- risdiction over the erection of such cranes. The Carpen- ters Union generally claims jurisdiction over framing work that is done by a framing contractor . Iron Workers Local 433 admits in its answer that it has been engaged in a labor dispute with Western at the Lakes project. Western erected the building crane at the Lakes project in the latter part of May 1986. The work took 2 or 3 days to complete. During the first few days of June 1986 a man came to the site and spoke to David Ricketts, Benchmark's project superintendent . The man identified himself as Ray McElvain, a business agent of Iron Workers Local 433.2 Ricketts asked for a business card and McElvain replied that he did not have one with him. McElvain ex- pressed concern about the building crane. On June 4, 1986, McElvain arrived at the building site with Mike Lucio and Baldwin Keenan , who were busi- ness agents of the Orange County District Council of Carpenters, and Gary Syperda, a business agent of a Plumbers local. All four gave their business cards to Benchmark's project superintendent Ricketts. McElvain's card identified him as a business agent of Iron Workers Local 433. Ricketts, who had heard rumors that there might be a strike, asked the four business agents whether they were there for a prestrike meeting. They did not reply to that question . Instead, McElvain pointed to the crane, which was visible from where they were .located, and asked him whether Western was the contractor who had erected it. McElvain showed Ricketts a business card from Western. Ricketts answered that. it was. About 6 a.m.,-on June 9, 1986, pickets appeared at all five gates of the Lakes project. Many of the picket signs read "Western State Builders Unfair to Iron Workers Local 433." Some of these signs also said , "No Union Contract," others said , "Live Better Work Union," and a third said, "No Agreement." Some of the signs had "Local 433" partially covered with other material. All the signs ended with "Sanctioned By the Orange County Building & Construction Trades- Council, AFL-CIO." Some signs read "Western State Builder Unfair to Iron Workers-No Agreement-Orange County Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO." McElvain was on the picket line together with business agents from other unions such as the Carpenters and the Steamfitters or Pipefitters. All the business agents were carrying picket signs. Shortly after the picketing began, Ernest Redmond, the owner of a security consultant firm that had been hired by Benchmark, and Mark Kovacevich, Bench- mark's project manager, began posting signs at the gates leading onto the Lakes site. The site was surrounded by a chainlink fence and there were five gates . Three of the 2 In its answer Iron Workers Local 433 admits that as of the date of its answer Ray McElvam was its business agent As found below the man who identified himself as McElvam was in fact Ray McElvam, Iron Workers Local 433's business agent gates were for vehicle use. They were called gates 1, 2, and 2(a). Gates 1 and 2 were on Sakioka Street about 200 yards apart . The third vehicular gate was designated gate 2(a) and it was located roughly 600 yards across from Sakioka Street on Avenue of the Arts. In addition there were two walk-in gates that were located between gate 1 and gate 2 . They were designated main gate 1 and main gate 2. By 6:35 a.m. all five gates were posted. The sign on gate 1 and on main gate 1 read Stop - Read Gate 1 This Gate Is Reserved For Personnel, Visitors & Suppliers Of The Contractors Listed Below: Western States Contractors All Others Must Use Gate 2 The signs posted at gates 2, 2(a), and main gate 2 read: Stop-Read Gate 2 This Gate May Not Be Used By Personnel, Visitors Or Suppliers Of The Contractors Listed Below: Western State Building All Others Must Use This Gate The signs were large, boldly printed„ and clearly visible for a long distance. After the signs were posted the pickets continued pick- eting at all five gates. Some of the picket signs used di- rectly in front of the gate 2 signs stated that Western State Builders was unfair to Iron Workers Local 433. McElvain, as well as business agents from other unions were, near gate 2 signs with people who were carrying picket signs. That same situation continued on June 9, 10, and 11. On June 9 McElvain carried a picket sign and he walked with other pickets between gate 1 and gate 2 so as to cover both gates in the picket walk. On June 9 a number of the employees from various subcontractors on the job did not come through the picket line. Some of the employees who refrained from working were employed by Arciero Brothers, Franklin Steel, Emath-Emory Testing Labs, and Psomas Survey- ing. In addition, Transit Mix Concrete Company trucks, which had come 'to deliver materials to Arciero, as well as other trucks, would not cross the picket line. About 7:30 a.m. on June 9, McElvain came onto the site,- as did business agents from other unions. Bench- mark's project superintendent Ricketts asked McElvain why he was continuing to picket after they had posted the gates. McElvam did not reply. On the same day McElvain exchanged business cards with Benchmark's project manager Kovacevich. That morning Ricketts told a Western superintendent that his company was named on the picket signs as the reason for the picketing and that Western was to leave the job immediately. The only people on the site work- ing for Western at that time were the Western superin- tendent and his assistant . They both left the site. West- IRON WORKERS LOCAL 433 (BENCHMARK CONTRACTORS) em's employees', did not appear on the jobsite on June 10 or 11. On June 10, 1986, the picketing continued at all five gates. Some of the picket signs at gate 2 said that West- ern States Building was unfair. Some of the picket signs at that gate read "Iron Workers 433" while others'read "Orange County District Trades Council."' At . times McElvain was outside the property with a group of busi- ness agents from other locals, Picket signs were also car- ried identifying other unions. About midmorning on June 10 Benchmark's project superintendent Ricketts met with McElvain, Baldwin Keenan, and Mike Lucia of the District Council of Car- penters, and a business agent from the Laborers Union. He told them that the gates were still posted and that Western had been removed from the job. He asked them why they were still striking. McElvain answered that the problem was the crane that Western had erected, that the strike was over the crane, and that the pickets' would not be removed until the crane was removed from the job. On June 10 Benchmark's project manager Kovacevich sent a mailgram to Iron Workers Local 433,3 which gave a detailed description of the location and purpose of the reserved gates and notifying the Union that picketing at the neutral gates would be considered secondary. Iron Workers Local 433 did not respond to the telegram. Picketing continued at all five gates on June 11 with the same signs being used. - From June 9 through 11, 1986, Redmond, the security consultant for Benchmark, had personnel posted at each of the gates to monitor who was coming and going. During all that time the signs posted at the gates were the same. As noted above, picket signs indicated a number of different unions. On June 9, 10, and 11 some of the picket signs that were carried at Gate 2 read "Iron Workers Local 433." Though a number of labor organizations were in- volved in the picketing, Iron Workers Local 433 is the only Respondent in this case. Benchmark filed separate charges against Orange County District Council of Car- penters (Case 21-CC-2944) and Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 652, AFL-CIO (Case 21-CC=2950). Complaints issued in both cases al- leging that those unions engaged in violations of Section 8(b)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act at the Lakes construction site at the times we are concerned with. Both of those cases were) resolved by settlement agreements that con- tained nonadinission clauses. B. Analysis and Conclusions In Broadcast Employees NABET (CBS, Inc.), 237 NLRB 1370, 1374-1375 (1978), enfd. 631 F.2d 944 (D,C. Cir. 1980), the Board affirmed the rulings, findings, and conclusions contained in the decision of Administrative Law Judge Paul Bisgyer, who held: At the outset, it may be appropriate to review some basic principles respecting secondary boy- 8 On June 9, 1986, a similar telegram was sent to the Engineers, Car- penters, and Iron Workers Local 416 1091 cotts. It has long been established that, despite the literal language of Section 8(b)(4)(B),21 its prohibi- tions are designed to reach only secondary boycott activities by a labor organization, leaving primary action outside the scope of this provision. Indeed, when the 1959 amendments to the Act were en- acted, Congress took special care to assure that pri- mary action was not intended to fall within the ban of Section 8(b)(4)(B) by providing that "nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or primary picketing. . . ." To be sure, the line between secondary and primary activi- ty is not always clear, especially in common situs situations where more than one employer are en- gaged in their normal business operations at the same location. Mindful of the "dual congressional objectives of preserving the right of labor organiza- tions to bring pressure to bear on offending employ- ers in primary labor disputes and of shielding unof- fending employers and others from pressures in con- troversies not their own,"22 the Board devised the familiar Moore Dry Dock guidelines,23 approved by the courts, to aid in determining whether the union's object was primary and therefore lawful or whether it was really secondary as being calculated to enmesh neutral employers and employees in the union's dispute with the primary employer which the Act was designed to prevent. However, the Board and the courts have cautioned that the Moore Dry Dock standards are only guidelines not to be mechanically applied and that, while compliance might give rise to a rebuttable inference that the picketing was primary, the totality of the evidence might reveal an underlying' proscribed secondary objective and overcome the presumption.24 In addition to the Moore Dry Dock standards adopted to minimize the potential for unnecessarily involving neutrals in a primary dispute of no con- cern to them, the Board and courts have recognized the right of employers to designate at a common site a gate specially reserved for the exclusive use of the primary employer, his employees, suppliers, and materialmen for entry and departure and to estab- lish other gates for use by neutral employers, em- ployees and others having business relationships with the neutral employers.25 Where separate gates, are thus designated and legitimately maintained, the union must confine its picketing activities to the pri- mary gate and avoid implicating neutrals by picket- ing the gates set aside for the neutrals' sole use, or else risk violating Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.26 Of course, the integrity of the neutral gate must not be compromised by its use by primary personnel or suppliers which would result in destroying its im- munity from primary picketing.27 Moreover, the es- tablishment of the reserved primary gate must not be at a location on the site which would impair the effectiveness of picketing to reach the primary em- ployer and employees. For, as the Board noted in one case, "The purpose of the separate gate is to 1092 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD permit lawful picketing that will be conducted so as to minimize its impact on neutral employees insofar as this can be done without substantial impairment of the effectiveness of the picketing in reaching the primary employees."28 21 Formerly numbered Sec 8(b)(4)(A) 22 NLRB Y. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council [Gould & Preuner], 341 U S 675, 692 (1951). 23 Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock), supra Under this doctrine, to support an inference of primary action, (a) the picketing must be strictly limited to times when the situs of the dis- pute is located on the secondary employer's premises; (b) at the time of the picketing the primary employer is engaged in his 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 Since Moore Dry Dock, the Board has extended these standards "to picketing at the situs of a primary employer where a secondary or neutral employer is engaged . " General Teamsters, Warehouse and Dairy Employees Union Local No. 126 et al (Ready Mixed Con- crete, Inc.), 200 NLRB 253, fn 5 (1972), to the same effect, Retail Fruit & Vegetable Clerks' Union Local 1017, et al. (Crystal Palace Market), 116 NLRB 856, 859 (1956). 24 International Brotherhood'of Electrical Workers, Local Union 861 (Plauche Electric, Inc), 135 NLRB 250, 255 (1962); Northeast- ern Washington-Northern Idaho Building and Construction Trades Council et al. (Northwestern Construction of Washington, Inc), 152 NLRB 975, 980 (1965), International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union 450, AFL-CIO (Linbeck Construction Corporation), 219 NLRB 997, 998 (1975), affil 550 F 2d 311 (C A 5, 1977) 25 Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO [General Elecric Company] v. NLRB, 366 U S 667 (1961) 26 Ibid 27 International Union of Operating Engmeeis Local Union 450 (Linbeck Construction), supra. 28 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 640, AFL-CIO (Timber Buildings, Inc), 176 NLRB -150, 151 (1969), quoting from Retail Fruit & Vegetable Clerks' Union, Local 1017 (Crystal Palace Market), supra, 859, Nashville Building & Construc- tion Trades Council et at (H. E Collins Contracting Company, Inc.), 172 NLRB 1138, 1140 (1968), see also Wire Service Guild, Local 222, The Newspaper Guild AFL-CIO-CLC (The Miami Herald Publishing Company), 218 NLRB 1234, 1236 (1975). In more recent cases the Board has uniformly followed those general principles of law. See, e.g., Carpenters (Bridges & Co.), 282 NLRB 422 (1986); Electrical Work- ers IBEW Local 332 (Lockheed Missiles), 241 NLRB 674 (1979). Indeed, Iron Workers Local 433, the Respondent in this case, has played an active role in the development of that law. In Iron Workers Local 433 (McKee, Inc.), 233 NLRB 283 (1977), enfd. in part 598 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1979),4 the Board and the Ninth Circuit found that Iron Workers Local 433, violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by its unlawful picketing at a reserved gate on a construction project. In Iron Workers Local 433 (Olt- mans Construction), 272 NLRB 1182 (1984), the Board found that Iron Workers Local 433 unlawfully involved neutrals in its dispute with a primary employer through the picketing of gates reserved for neutrals. Finally in Iron Workers Local 433 (United Steel), 280 NLRB 1325 (1986), the Board once again found that Iron Workers Local 433 had violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of ' Regarding some of the reserved gate picketing, the Ninth Circuit found a violation of Sec 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) Concerning other picketing the court found there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Union had notice of the reserved gate the Act by picketing at reserved gates. That ' case in- volved four different jobsites in two different States. In all the above cited cases the Board or the administrative law judge set forth the controlling law. In the instant case Iron Workers Local 433 had a pri- mary dispute with Western that concerned a building crane at the Lakes project. The general contractor and all the subcontractors on that project were neutrals in the dispute between Iron Workers Local 433 and West- ern. The general contractor established and properly posted gates to the project that could be used only by Western. Other, gates were reserved exclusively for neu- trals. Benchmark did everything -necessary to set up, and preserve gates reserved for neutrals, and Iron Workers Local 433 was given adequate notice in that regard. As is set forth in detail above, the picketing on June 9, 10, and 11, 1986, completely ignored the existence of the re- served gates. All the gates were indiscriminately picket- ed with signs that identified the picketing Union as Iron Workers Local 433. Under all the circumstances set forth above, the conclusion is inescapable that Iron Workers Local 433 was responsible for that picketing. Iron Work- ers Local 433's business agent McElvain was on the picket line all 3 days of the picketing. He himself carried a picket sign. Although none of the witnesses knew McElvain by sight before the picketing, the General Counsel has established that the person identified as McElvain was in fact the same McElvain who was the business agent for Iron Workers Local 433. Iron Work- ers Local 433 admitted that McElvain was, at the times of its answer, a business agent for the local. McElvain represented himself to the general contractor on the job as the business agent for Iron Workers Local 433. He gave out business cards showing that he was the business agent. He introduced himself to the general contractor as the business agent in the presence of business agents from other unions and none of the other business agents ques- tioned his representations. His actions and statements re- lated to work that was claimed by Iron Workers Local 433 and were such as to indicate that he was in fact the business agent. He spoke to the general contractor about the Iron Workers Local 433's concerns before the picket- ing began and, after the picketing had commenced, he told the general contractor what would be necessary to end the picketing. He attended meetings with the general contractor that were attended by business agents from other unions. In addition, Iron Workers Local 433 rested on the conclusion of the General Counsel's case. It of- fered no evidence that would raise a question with regard to McElvain's status as business agent or with regard to McElvain's actions or statements at the jobsite. In sum, McElvain was Iron Workers Local 433's agent at the jobsite and that Union is responsible for the picket- ing with Iron Workers Local 433's signs at the gates re- served for neutrals. Iron Workers Local 433 (United Steel), -280 NLRB 1325 (1986). I find that Iron Workers Local 433 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the IRON WORKERS LOCAL 433 (BENCHMARK-.CONTRACTORS) Act by picketing at gates reserved for neutrals at the Lakes project on June 9, 10, and 11, 1986.5 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Western is an employer i engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Iron Workers Local 433 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.' 3. By. picketing at gates reserved for neutrals at the Lakes project on June 9, 10, and 11, 1986, Iron Workers Local 433 has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Iron Workers Local 433 has en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act. As set forth in some detail above, Iron Workers Local 433 has previously been found to have unlawfully picket- ed at construction site gates reserved for neutrals. I cited those cases above not to show any propensity to violate the Act but simply to show the evolution of the law re- lating to secondary boycotts. In considering the require- ments of an appropriate remedy, the past conduct of the Respondent must be considered. Iron Workers Local 433's conduct indicates that it has a total disregard for the secondary boycott provisions of the Act. In Iron Workers Local 433 (United Steel), 280 NLRB 1325 (1986), the Board adopted Administrative Law Judge' Gordon J. Myatt's finding that Iron Workers Local 433 evinced a proclivity to violate those secondary boycott provisions. The Board issued a broad order which, inter alia, enjoins Iron Workers Local 433 from inducing and encouraging employees or any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to refuse to perform any services where an object thereof is to force or require any person to cease doing business with any other person. The order further enjoins Iron Workers Local 433 from in any manner threatening, 'coercing, or re- straining any person engaged in commerce or in an in- dustry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force any person to cease doing business with any other person. If, as the Board found in that case, a broad order was required, then, a fortiori, one is required in the in- stant case in which the same Respondent has again en- ' Par 8(b) of the complaint alleges that on June 10 and 11, 1986, Iron Workers Local 433 picketed Western at the neutral gates when Western was not present at the Lakes project. For the reasons set forth above, I found that picketing at the neutral gates was unlawful whether or not Western was present at the Lakes project There is no need to determine whether the picketing would have been lawful if Iron Workers Local 433 had limited its picketing to the gates reserved for Western at a time when Western was not at the project There is no such allegation in the com- plaint In any event, a serious argument could be made that picketing could not be directed at neutrals if it took place solely at a location re- served for the exclusive use of the primary employer, whether or not the primary employer was actually on the site at any given time 1093, gaged in similar unlawful conduct. I shall therefore rec- ommend a broad order. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed" ORDER The Respondent, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers Local 433, Costa Mesa, California, its officers, agents, and represent- atives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (ii) Picketing at construction site gates reserved for neutrals, or in any other manner inducing or encouraging employees of Benchmark Contractors, Inc., any of its subcontractors, or any other person engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce, to refuse in the course of their employment to perform any service where an object thereof is to force or require those em- ployers, or any other person, to cease doing business with Western State Building Enterprises, with each other, or with any other person. (b) Picketing at construction _ site gates reserved for neutrals, or in any other manner threatening, coercing, or restraining Benchmark Contractors, any of its subcon- tractors, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require those employers, or any other person, to cease doing business with each other, Western State Building Enterprises, or any other person. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. _ (a) Post at its business office and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re- spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov- ered by any other material. (b) Furnish the Regional Director with signed copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by Benchmark Con- tractors and its subcontractors if those companies are willing to post them. (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. B 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 ' 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 " 1094 DECISIONS 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 WE WILL NOT picket at construction site gates re- served for neutrals, or in any other manner induce or en- courage employees of Benchmark Contractors, any of its subcontractors, or any other person engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce, to refuse in the course of their employment to perform any service where an object thereof is to force or require those em- ployers, or any other person to cease doing business with Western State Building Enterprises , with each other, or with any other person. - - WE WILL NOT picket at construction site gates re- served for neutrals, or in any other manner threaten, coerce, or restrain Benchmark Contractors , any of its subcontractors, or any other person engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require those employers, or any other person, to cease doing business with each other, Western State Building Enterprises, or any other person. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON- WORKERS LOCAL No. 433 j