International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers, Local 6

680 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 6 and Intercontinental Hotels Corpora- tion. Case 20-CC-2991 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE 30 September 1987 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND BABSON On 16 June 1987 Administrative Law Judge Earldean V.S. Robbins issued the attached deci- sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief; the Charging Party filed cross-excep- tions and a supporting brief and an answering brief to the Respondent's exceptions; the General Coun- sel filed a limited cross-exception and an answering brief to the Respondent's exceptions; and the Re- spondent filed an answering brief to the cross-ex- ceptions. 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, 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 Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 6, San Francisco, California, its officers, agents, and repre- sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order. i We adopt the judge's conclusion that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(bX4Xi) and (uXB) of the Act by its January 1987 picketing We find it unnecessary to pass on the cross-exceptions of the General Counsel and the Charging Party to the judge's failure to include in her conclusions of law a finding that the Respondent's 23 December 1986 picketing was un- lawful, because the finding of such an additional violation merely would be cumulative and would not materially affect our Order. In adopting the judge 's finding that the conduct of the picketers in Jan- uary was attributable to the Respondent, Member Babson emphasizes that such picketers specifically were authorized by the Respondent to picket and that it cloaked them with apparent authority to act on its behalf Jolane Findley, Esq., for the General Counsel. Jane Lawhon, Esq. (Neyhart, Anderson, Nussbaum, Reilly & Freitas), of San Francisco, California, for the Re- spondent. Christopher W. Katzenbach, Esq. (Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro), of San Francisco, California, for the Charging Party. EARLDEAN V.S. ROBBINS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried before me in San Francisco, Califor- nia, on 10 March 1987. The charge was filed by Inter- continental Hotels Corporation (IHC), on 30 December 1986, and served on International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, Local 6 (Respondent), on 31 December 1986. The complaint, which issued on 22 January 1987, alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act. The princi- ple issue herein is whether Respondent is liable for the conduct alleged in the complaint. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consider- ation of the briefs filed by the parties, I make the follow- ing FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION At all times material, Telarian Corp. (Telarian), a Cali- fornia corporation with an office and place of business in Santa Barbara, California, has been engaged in the busi- ness of installing enunciated smoke detection and energy management systems for hotels and motels. During the past calendar year, Telarian, in the course and conduct of its business operations, has purchased and received at its Santa Barbara facility, and at its various projects in California, equipment, products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of California. At all times material, the Mark Hopkins-Intercontinen- tal Hotel (the Hotel), a subsidiary of IHC, has been en- gaged in the business of operating a hotel which pro- vides lodging, food, and beverage service to the public at its facility on One Nob Hill, San Francisco, California. At all times material, the Hotel has been involved in a renovation of certain rooms at the Hotel. In the course of this renovation, Telarian has been engaged by the Hotel to perform work on the installation and low-volt- age wiring of an enunciated smoke detection and energy management system. At all times material, in the course of the renovation, the Hotel has also engaged Marchetti Construction (Mar- chetti) as a general contractor for the construction as- pects of the renovation. Marchetti has, in turn, subcon- tracted work for the renovation project at the Hotel to various subcontractors, including McClure Electric, Ayoob & Perry, South City Mechanical, Zelinsky Paint- ing, Gino Rinaldi, Ruane Plastering, Artistic Glass, and Anderson, Rowe & Buckley (neutral subcontractors). At all times material, Parisian Bakeries, Inc. (Parisian) has been a supplier of bakery products to the Hotel. The complaint alleges, and I find, that at all times ma- terial Telarian, IHC, the Hotel, Marchetti, Parisian, and the neutral subcontractors each has been an employer or person engaged in commerce or in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(1), (6), and (7) and Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. 286 NLRB No. 60 ELECTRICAL WORKERS IBEW LOCAL 6 (INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS) 681 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION The complaint alleges and I find that at all times mate- rial Respondent has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) and Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The facts are generally undisputed . Respondent oper- ates the Mark Hopkins Hotel , a 400-room luxury hotel atop Nob Hill in San Francisco . In November 1986 the Hotel commenced a renovation project scheduled for completion in December 1987. Marchetti Construction is the general contractor for the renovation and also per- forms the carpentry work. Marchetti's subcontractors on the project include mechanical contractor Ayoob & Perry, electrical contractor McClure Electric, plastering contractor Patrick J. Ruane, painting contractor D. Ze- linsky & Son, plumbing contractor Anderson, Rowe & Buckley, and drywall contractor C. & R. Construction. Also, under a contract directly with the Hotel, Telarian Corp. is installing an enunciated monitored smoke detec- tion and energy management system in the Hotel. This involves installing smoke detectors in the guest rooms that will be monitored in the Hotel 's security department and telephone room, and an energy management system connected to the Hotel's mainframe computer that will automatically turn on and off the heating , ventilation, and air conditioning in individual guest rooms when a guest checks in or out . Marchetti and its named subcon- tractors were all scheduled to, and did, work at the project on a daily, Monday through Friday, basis from mid-December 1986 to the end of January 1987, the period here . Telarian was also scheduled to work on a daily basis during this time period. Telarian had six employees working at the Hotel in December and January.' It is undisputed that these em- ployees are covered by a collective -bargaining agreement between Telarian and Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 9431 (CWA), located in Auburn, California. During this same period, Telarian had no collective-bargaining agreement with Respond- ent. It is also undisputed that during this period Re- spondent had no labor dispute with the Hotel nor with Marchetti or any of Marchetti's subcontractors at the project. On 18 December Marvin Glenn, the Hotel 's chief en- gineer, received a telephone message from Richard Bam- berger, business representative for Respondent, request- ing that Glenn telephone Bamberger regarding Bam- berger's check of union cards at the Hotel which re- vealed that Telarian employees did not have cards. Shortly thereafter, Glenn questioned William Miller, Te- larian's foreman, concerning whether all the Telarian employees possessed union cards . Miller stated that only two of the six employees actually had cards in their pos- session and that the other four had made arrangements to obtain cards but had not received them as yet. Glenn then telephoned Bamberger . According to Glenn, Bamberger said he had been at the Hotel and had 1 All dates in December will be in 1986 and in January will be in 1987. noticed that Telarian employees were there making an installation. Glenn explained what Telarian's work was on the project. Bamberger said the Telarian employees could not produce union cards. Glenn said he had been assured by Telarian prior to the commencement of work on the project that Telarian employees would have union cards, but on checking with Miller that day, he had learned that only two of the six Telarian employees could actually produce union cards. Glenn further told Bamberger he had informed Miller that Telarian would have to leave the jobsite until its employees could phys- ically produce union cards. Glenn also telephoned Jim Piltingsrud, marketing di- rector for Telarian, with regard to the Telarian employ- ees not having union cards. Piltingsrud said he was flying to Sacramento to get the cards. Telarian did not work at the Hotel on Friday, 19 December, but returned to the project on the Monday, 22 December. On 23 December, at approximately 9 a.m., two men commenced picketing the Hotel on California Street. The Hotel has four entrances, all located on California Street. The main guest entrance is located at the top of the hill at California and Mason Streets. Proceeding downhill from the main entrance, the next entrance is a pedestrian one for the Cafe Vienna. About 15 to 20 feet further downhill is the construction entrance, a tempo- rary structure consisting of three plywood walls with a couple of storage doors and an orange construction ele- vator. This entrance is posted with signs that say, Mar- chetti Construction, and an elevator operator in Mar- chetti's employ is at the elevator on a full-time basis. About 20 to 30 feet further downhill is the garage en- trance that is used for deliveries and by hotel employees and vendors. The pickets were first observed at the construction en- trance carrying signs which read: Telarian Corp. Is Unfair To IBEW Local No. 6 This Dispute Is With Telarian Only The pickets remained until around noon that day. Shortly after 9 a.m., according to Glenn, he observed a man talking to some Telarian employee's in the base- ment level of the Hotel near Glenn's office. The man identified himself as John Walsh, a representative of Re- spondent, and requested that he be allowed to use the telephone, which he did. After Walsh concluded his tele- phone call, Glenn asked him, "Well, what can be done, what's going on." Walsh replied, "I'll get back with you." However, Walsh did not get back to him that day, and on each of the five or six times that day that Glenn tried to reach him by telephone, Glenn was informed that he was in a meeting . In accordance with Glenn's in- structions, Telarian employees left the construction site and did not return until the following day, 24 December. On 23 December, according to Piltingsrud, he tele- phoned Bamberger and asked why Respondent was pick- eting Telarian. Bamberger said they were not union workers. Piltingsrud said they are Communications Workers of America and that although some of the 682 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD workers did not have cards on them at that time, Telar- ian did have an agreement. Bamberger then said that the fire alarm system being installed by Telarian was in vio- lation of code, because they were not using conduit. Pil- tingsrud asked what could be done to rectify the situa- tion. Bamberger suggested that he call California Con- tractors Association and when Piltingsrud inquired who that was, Bamberger said, "They are in the San Francis- co area and I assume there 's one down in your area." According to Piltingsrud, when he told Bamberger that the Telarian employees were union workers from Auburn, Bamberger asked why they were not from the Bay Area. Piltingsrud replied that they had contacted CWA in the Bay Area who had referred them to Auburn because they did not have qualified workers to handle interfacing with the computer enunciated panel and the extensive punch-down situations needed. Pil- tingsrud also told Bamberger that Telarian did call IBEW asking if they had workers with these qualifica- tions, and IBEW referred them to the southern San Francisco CWA. Bamberger said he did not recollect that. Glenn testified that he telephoned Bamberger on 24 December and told him he had just spoken to Piltingsrud from Telarian, and he wanted to know what could be done to get the matter resolved because he was very concerned about the renovation of the Hotel. Bamberger said all they had to do was clear it through Local 6. Glenn said he would have Piltingsrud telephone Bamber- ger. According to Bamberger, when Glenn called, Glenn said there would be no Telarian employees on the job unless they were cleared through Respondent, to which Bamberger simply replied , "Thank you" and hung up. Piltingsrud testified that on 24 December he attempted to reach Bamberger by telephone on 14 separate occa- sions. And each time was told that Bamberger was not in. Finally, he spoke to someone who identified himself as the janitor. Piltingsrud told him to tell Bamberger it was an emergency, and he wanted to talk to him. When Bamberger came to the telephone, Piltingsrud identified himself. Bamberger said he had a bad connection and would get on another line . Piltingsrud said , fine, and waited for 17 minutes. However, Bamberger did not return to the telephone. On 29 December Franz E. Glen, Respondent's manag- er and financial secretary, sent a letter to the Hotel's at- torney disclaiming any intent to picket the Hotel with an object of forcing Telarian or the Hotel to assign the work of Telarian employees to Respondent and asserting its right to notify the public that the fire alarm installa- tion was in violation of the San Francisco code require- ments and that employees were receiving less than the prevailing rate of pay. The telegram further stated that Respondent would not engage in further picketing until at least 5 January. On 6 January Bamberger telephoned Piltingsrud and asked for the wage rate of the Telarian employees. Ac- cording to Piltingsrud, he told Bamberger to call the CWA who would have the Telarian contract on file. Ac- cording to Bamberger, Piltingsrud replied that such in- formation was of no interest to Bamberger. Bamberger further testified that Piltingsrud said Telarian had a col- lective-bargaining agreement, but when Bamberger asked for a copy, Piltingsrud did not respond. On the following day, according to Piltingsrud, Bob Winterenham, the owner of Telarian, sent Bamberger a copy of the Telarian-CWA contract. The parties stipulat- ed that prior to 19 January Respondent received the CWA contract. That contract set forth a wage range from $12.36 an hour to $16.48 an hour; whereas, the rate of pay for inside wiremen under Respondent's contract is $26.405 per hour. On 8 January Glen sent telegrams to the Hotel's attor- ney and to Telarian disavowing any object of claiming Telarian's work at the Hotel for Respondent and reserv- ing Respondent's right to picket in order to inform the public that employees performing the work were receiv- ing less than the prevailing rate of pay. From 24 December through 18 January, Respondent did not picket at the Hotel. However, it is undisputed that on 19, 20, and 21 January Respondent picketed at the Hotel. The same two persons picketed each day with signs that read: UNFAIR TELARIAN DOES NOT PAY PREVAILING RATES OF PAY FOR ELECT. WORK The two pickets also wore blue and white banners that read "Pickets, AFL-CIO." According to the undemed testimony of John Flynn, security manager at the Hotel , shortly after 9 a.m. on 19 January, he spoke to one of the pickets at a point be- tween the construction entrance and the Cafe Vienna en- trance. Flynn asked the pickets why they were picketing. The pickets showed him the sign. Flynn asked how the matter could be resolved. The picket replied that Flynn should contact John Walsh of Local 6. Flynn asked how long the pickets planned to remain . The picket said he did not know, that Flynn would have to contact John Walsh. Flynn asked if Walsh had sent him out, and the picket replied yes. Flynn further testified that shortly before 10 a.m. on that same day, he spoke to the second picket located at the main guest entrance. Flynn asked why he was picket- ing in front of the main entrance of the Hotel. The picket said, "He had been instructed that the union had checked and they could picket on the sidewalk all the entrances to the hotel." When Flynn stated that this was only a guest entrance and that the people they were upset with use the employee entrance , the picket replied, "They weren't picketing the other employees, they were picketing the hotel." However, in a statement given by Flynn to Charging Party's attorney on 20 January his account of the con- versation was, "I spoke to the second picket and asked why they were picketing in front of the main entrance to the hotel. He said that they had checked and they could picket in front of the hotel , since it was the hotel that employed Telarian." Picketing continued that day until approximately 2 p.m. On 20 January the pickets were at the Hotel from at least 7 :26 a.m. until approximately 2 p.m. According to ELECTRICAL WORKERS IBEW LOCAL 6 (INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS) Rene Martin, a route salesman for Parisian Bakeries and a member of Teamsters Local 484, when he arrived at the Hotel to make his bread delivery at approximately 7:45 a.m., he observed a person with a picket sign stand- ing near the Cafe Vienna entrance and another person with a picket sign further up the hill towards Mason Street. Shortly thereafter, he spoke to one of the pickets in front of the Marchetti Construction entrance. Accord- ing to Martin, when he asked what was going on, the picket replied, "We're picketing the hotel." Martin said, "Picketing the hotel? I did not realize they were having a labor dispute." The picket said they were picketing the Hotel because it had hired this company to do some work. The picket further said they were not picketing Marchetti Construction. Martin said, "Well, you're put- ting me in kind of a bind beca use our agreement with our union is that if we are not given 24 hours notice when pickets are put up we can make one delivery be- cause we do have a perishable item and that's always been the case with the customers that we've served where they have had labor disputes. We can serve them the one day but not more." The picket said, "Okay, we'll let you go in under those circumstances." Martin said he would check with his union and get a ruling and abide by whatever his union told him. Martin made his delivery that day and left. Later, when he checked with his union, the union had no knowledge of the picket line. On the following day, when he made a delivery to the Hotel, he did not ob- serve any pickets on duty. Martin does not recall the legend on the picket sign but testified that he saw a logo on the sign that said "Local 6." Rico Ramos, a security officer at the Hotel, testified that he heard one of the pickets tell Martin that the pick- eting was towards the Hotel and not towards Marchetti. He also heard Martin tell the picket that because they were not given 24 hours' notice he was going to make this one delivery because he had perishables in his truck and then he was going to call to find out whether the picketing was sanctioned; and, if it was, he would not make any further deliveries until it was settled. The pickets remained until sometime between 1:30 and 2 p.m. During most of the day both of them picketed at the main guest entrance. Marchetti and its subcontractors were scheduled to work on both 19 and 20 January and Flynn testified that he specifically observed employees of Marchetti, Zelinsky, and McClure Electric working on those days. By telegram dated 20 January, Anne Libbin, attorney for the Hotel, informed Respondent that its picketing of the Hotel had caused a refusal to work by employees of the contractors engaged in renovation work at the Hotel and that in order to avoid further disruption of the ren- ovation, the Hotel was directing Telarian to cease work as of 21 January until the picketing was enjoined. The telegram further stated that the main guest entrance to the Hotel was never used by any employees of Telarian or any other construction contractor. This telegram was delivered to Respondent at 10 a. m. on 21 January. On 21 January the same two pickets resumed picketing the Hotel. According to Flynn, at approximately 8:15 a.m., he asked the pickets why they were there. They re- 683 plied that they were picketing. Flynn said he did not un- derstand why they were there because Telarian was no longer on the property; that they had been asked to leave the previous day. The pickets said they had no knowledge of that, but they had called Local 6 and were told to resume picketing on Wednesday. Flynn said, "For your own benefit you should call the union and see what they say." The pickets replied, "If they want us to leave, they'll come out and get us." Flynn further testified that shortly before 9 a.m. he and Fred Lowell, another attorney, were with Libbin when she spoke to the pickets. Libbin told the pickets that Telarian was off the property and their picketing at this point was illegal. The picket said they knew nothing about it, that the Union had told them to come out and picket. Libbin suggested that they call the Union. The pickets then went to a telephone and were observed placing a call to someone. However, following this tele- phone call they continued to picket until about 11 a.m. Neither of the pickets testified even though Walsh ad- mitted he kept a record of the names of the pickets on his calendar. However, Respondent adduced testimony as to the instructions they were given. Respondent's busi- ness manager, Franz Glen, testified that Respondent does not provide written instructions to pickets with respect to their conduct on the picket line According to him, however, prior to the commencement of picketing at any particular location, it is his practice to meet with the business agent assigned to handle the picketing to go over with the agent the instructions that he is to give to the pickets. Specifically, on 19 January, about 7:15 or 7:30 a.m., according to Glen, he told John Walsh "John when you take the pickets down there, make sure they understand that they are not to talk to anybody, but if anybody asks them a question, just point to the sign. We have a prob- lem here, and it is not with the hotel. We are merely ad- vertising to the public that the proper wages are not being paid." He also testified that for each of the 3 days in January that the picketing occurred, he had the same conversation with Walsh or Bamberger depending on which of them was transporting the pickets to the Hotel. Glen further testified that it is Respondent's practice to obtain pickets by requesting volunteers from persons present in Respondent's referral office. He admits that pickets are not instructed to call Respondent if they have questions or if anything comes up. Nor are they request- ed to report at the end of the day on what occurred during the picketing that day. It is not Respondent's practice to have such discussions with the pickets. Walsh testified that, on 19 January, Glen told him Re- spondent was going to picket Telarian at the Hotel to inform the public that Telarian was not paying prevailing wages for the work that was being done, and instructed him to make sure the pickets understood this as it was not a normal procedure. Following this conversation, Walsh spoke to the dispatcher at the referral hall and asked if there was anyone available to picket that day. The dispatcher said there were a few people. Walsh went to the referral hall and asked for volunteers. He 684 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD then took the two persons who volunteered to the job- site. Walsh further testified that enroute to the jobsite, he told the pickets they were going to the Hotel to adver- tise to the public that there was a company there who was not paying prevailing wages. He further instructed them to tell anyone who talked to them or asked ques- tions to read the sign, that the sign speaks for itself. Ac- cording to him, he specifically instructed them, "Don't get involved in conversations with individuals, because you do not know who you are talking to, who they may represent. Just tell them to read the sign. It's self-explan- atory." After dropping them off at the Hotel, he had no further contact with the pickets that day. Walsh identi- fied the two pickets as Mike Lauten and Doug, neither of whom was a member of Respondent. He did not take the pickets to the Hotel on 20 January and did not see them on that day. Bamberger testified that in mid-January Glen asked him to take the pickets to the Hotel. After Bamberger agreed to do so, Glen instructed him to inform the pick- ets to tell anyone who asked questions to read the sign, that all the information was on the sign. Glen further said that the picketing was to advertise substandard wages. Bamberger also testified that on the way to the Hotel, he instructed the pickets that they were not to converse with anyone; that the picket signs were simply there to advertise to the public. One of the pickets in- quired, "Well, what if they ask for the address and phone number of IBEW Local 6?" Bamberger replied, "You tell him to read the sign, not to volunteer any- thing." After leaving them at the Hotel, Bamberger had no further contact with the pickets that day or any other day. Walsh testified that after Respondent received the tele- gram stating that Telarian was not on the jobsite, he went to the Hotel and instructed the pickets to cease picketing the Hotel. According to Walsh, he never dis- cussed with the pickets any particular entrances that should or should not be picketed. He does not recall going to the Hotel at any time during the 3 days to check on the picketing. Glen testified that at some point he learned that the pickets had disregarded their instructions and made state- ments on the picket line. As a result, he sent identical telegrams to Libbin and Parisian Bakeries on 2 February, the body of which reads: Please be advised that IBEW Local 6 is picketing the site of renovations to the Mark Hopkins Hotel solely for the purpose of informing the public that Telarian Corporation is not paying prevailing wages. We have not and are not picketing for the purpose of forcing or requiring Parisian Bakeries In- corporated or other persons engaged in commerce or in industry affecting commerce, to cease doing business with the Mark Hopkins Hotel in order to force the Mark Hopkins to cease doing business with Telarian. The Union has not and is not picket- ing directly for the purpose of forcing or requiring the Mark Hopkins Hotel to cease doing business with Telarian. To the extent that any individual picketers created a contrary impression, the Union disavows such conduct and/or statements. No pick- eters had any authority to make statements about the picketing. The Union reiterates that we have no dispute with Parisian Bakeries Incorporated or the Mark Hopkins Hotel. Our picketing is strictly to protest Telarian's failure to pay prevailing wages. Conclusions Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii), subparagraph (B) of the Act provides in relevant part: (b) 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 individual employed by any person engaged in com- merce 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 serv- ices; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry af- fecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is: (B) forcing or requiring any person . . . to cease doing business with any other person . . . . Section 8(b)(4)(B) is the product of "the dual congres- sional objectives of preserving the right of labor organi- zations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes and of shielding unoffending employers and others from pressures in controversies not their own." NLRB v. Denver Bldg. & Construction Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675, 692 (1951). Thus, "picketing must be conducted so as to minimize its impact on neutral em- ployers insofar as this can be done without substantial impairment of the effectiveness of the picketing in reach- ing the employees of the primary employer." Nashville Bldg. & Construction Trades Council (H. E. Collins Con- tracting), 172 NLRB 1138, 1140 (1968), enfd. 425 F.2d 385 (6th Cir. 1970). In this regard, it is well settled that the legality of picketing at a common situs as in the con- struction industry must be determined under the Moore Dry Dock standards. Sailors Union (Moore Dry Dock), 92 NLRB 547 (1950); Sacramento Area District Council of Carpenters (Malek Construction), 244 NLRB 890 (1979); Nashville Bldg. & Construction Trades Council (Markwell & Hartz), 164 NLRB 280 (1967), enfd. 387 F.2d 79 (5th Cir. 1967). In Moore Dry Dock, the Board held that, in disputes in- volving a common situs, neither the right of the union to picket nor the right of the neutral employer to be free from picketing is absolute. In such situations, the picket- ing is primary and, therefore, legal, if the following crite- ria are met: ELECTRICAL WORKERS IBEW LOCAL 6 (INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS) 685 (1) the picketing is strictly limited to times when the situs of the dispute is located on the secondary employer's premises; (2) at the time of the picketing the primary em- ployer is engaged in its normal business at the situs; (3) the picketing is limited to places reasonably close to the location of the situs; and (4) the picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the primary employer. However, the Moore Dry Dock standards are only guidelines not to be mechanically applied. Rather, the Board has indicated they are to be applied with common sense and with a view to "the dual congressional objec- tives of preserving the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear on primary employers and of shielding secondary employers and others from pressures in controversies not their own." NLRB v. Denver Bldg. & Construction Trades Council (Gould & Precision), 341 U.S. 675, 692 (1951); Operating Engineers Local 450 (Linbeck Construction), 219 NLRB 997, 998 (1975), affd. 550 F.2d 311 (5th Cir. 1977). Therefore, while compliance might give rise to a rebuttable inference: of primary picketing, the totality of the evidence may reveal an underlying secondary objective and overcome the presumption. Here, the General Counsel and Charging Party con- tend that notwithstanding the legend on the picket sign identifying Telarian as the primary employer and pro- claiming that Telarian does not pay prevailing rates of pay, the statements of the pickets demonstrate an unlaw- ful secondary motive for the picketing. The Charging Party further argues that this evidence of unlawful moti- vation is buttressed by the picketing at the guest en- trance and the failure to remove the pickets on 21 Janu- ary immediately after the pickets were informed at 9 a.m. that Telarian had left the jobsite.2 Respondent argues, however, that the statements of the pickets cannot be imputed to Respondent because (1) the pickets were not members of Respondent, (2) they had been explicitly instructed not to explain their pur- pose in picketing beyond reference to the area standards signs, and (3) on being apprised of the unauthorized statements made by the pickets, Respondent took imme- diate steps to rectify the situation by telegraming dis- avowals of the statements to all concerned. Respondent further argues that the cases relied on by the General Counsel involved circumstances where statements were uttered in the presence of a picket captain or other union agent or a union agent was in the area during the period in which the statements were made, or the statements were made in a context where the union business repre- sentative had made threats to neutrals, or in the context of violence or other picket line misconduct. I have carefully considered the cases cited by Re- spondent and conclude they do not support Respondent's position. In none of these cases (lid the Board disavow the well-established principle that "where a union au- thorizes a picket line, it is required to retain control over 2 I reject Respondent's argument that these latter two contentions may not be considered because they were not specifically argued in the Gen- eral Counsel's posthearing brief. the picketing. If a union is unwilling or unable to take the necessary steps to control its pickets, it must bear the responsibility for their misconduct." Avis Rent-A-Car System, 280 NLRB 580 (1986); Iron Workers Local 455 (Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp.), 243 NLRB 340 (1979); Team- sters Local 695 (Tony Pellitteri Trucking), 174 NLRB 753 (1969); Longshoremen's Union, ILA (Sunset Line Co.), 79 NLRB 1487. Because this principle is based on the ordi- nary law of agency, there is no reason to infer that the existence of circumstances as argued by Respondent is essential to imputing to a union the conduct of its au- thorized pickets.3 Here the pickets were cloaked with the apparent au- thority to speak for the Union with regard to their pick- eting. In the absence of information referring them to some other source, it was reasonably foreseeable that op- portunities would arise for the pickets to speak to neu- trals, the employees of neutrals, and members of the public with regard to the picketing. It was also reason- ably foreseeable that, despite any instructions to the con- trary, the pickets would be tempted to give information particularly since they had been specifically instructed not to refer people to the Union for further information. Yet Respondent took no steps to supervise the picketing or even to debrief the pickets so it could be apprised as to any conversations that might raise problems and take appropriate steps. In the circumstances, despite Respond- ent's self-serving disavowals, I find that the statements by the pickets were made within the scope of their au- thority and are thus attributable to Respondent. The remaining question is whether Respondent's pick- eting had an objective proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(B). In this regard, if one of the objects of the picketing was unlawful, it is immaterial that Respondent had a legiti- mate interest in protesting what it believed to be Telar- ian's substandard wages; nor does literal compliance with Moore Dry Dock standards necessarily preclude the find- ing of an unlawful objective. Electrical Workers Local 3 (Bisantz Electric), 192 NLRB 283 (1971). As stated above, compliance with Moore Dry Dock standards cre- ates a presumption of legality that may be rebutted. Here, despite the use of informational picket signs identi- fying Telarian as the primary employer, the pickets' statements demonstrated an object of enmeshing the Hotel in a dispute not its own. The picketing at the main guest entrance when there was a separate construction entrance also tends to demonstrate such an object. It is immaterial that the pickets were not members of Re- spondent. In the circumstances, I find that Respondent's picketing was violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Bisantz Electric, supra. 3 Under the ordinary law of agency, a principal is liable for the acts of its agent "within the scope of the agent's general authority, or the 'scope of his employment' . even though the principal has not specifically au- thorized or indeed may have specifically forbidden the act in question It is enough if the principal actually empowered the agent to represent him in the general area within which the agent acted " Sunset Line Co, supra at 1509 Further, Sec 2(13) of the Act provides that the question of whether the specific acts performed were actually authorized or subse- quently ratified shall not be controlling 686 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Telarian Corp., Intercontinental Hotels Corporation, Mark Hopkins-Intercontinental Hotel, Marchetti Con- struction, McClure Electric, Ayoob & Perry, South City Mechanical, Zelinsky Painting, Gino Rinaldi, Ruane Plastering, Artistic Glass, Anderson, Rowe & Buckley, and Parisian Bakeries, Inc. are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and Section 8(b)(4) of the Act 2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By picketing at the Mark Hopkins-Intercontinental Hotel from 19 through 21 January 1987 for the purpose of inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Intercontinental Hotels Corporation, Mark Hopkins- Intercontinental Hotel, Marchetti Construction, McClure Electric, Ayoob & Perry, South City Mechanical, Ze- linsky Painting, Gino Rinaldi, Ruane Plastering, Artistic Glass, Anderson, Rowe & Buckley, Parisian Bakeries, Inc., and other persons engaged in commerce or in an in- dustry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or refus- al in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services; and by threatening, coercing, and restrain- ing the above-named employers, or other persons en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where an object in either case is to force or require the aforesaid employers to cease doing business with Telar- ian Corp. and with each other, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce 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 Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take such affirmative action as will effectuate the purposes of the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed4 Glass, Anderson, Rowe & Buckley, Parisian Bakeries, Inc, or any other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to use, manu- facture, 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 same persons, or any other persons, to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing with the products of, or to cease doing business with Telarian Corp. or with each other. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining the above- named employers, or any other persons engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require said persons to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise deal- ing with the products of, or cease doing business with, Telarian Corp. or with each other 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediate- ly 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 Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi- al. (b) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 20 signed copies of the notice in sufficient number for post- ing by the employers involved, they being willing, at all locations where notices to their employees are customan- ly 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. 5 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 " ORDER The Respondent, International Brotherhood of Electri- cal Workers, Local 6, its officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Intercontinental Hotels Corporation, Mark Hopkins- Intercontinental Hotel, Marchetti Construction, McClure Electric, Ayoob & Perry, South City Mechanical, Ze- linsky Painting, Gino Rinaldi, Ruane Plastering, Artistic 4 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 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 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 6. To ALL EMPLOYEES OF INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS CORPORATION, MARK HOPKINS-INTERCONTINENTAL HOTEL, MARCHETTI CONSTRUCTION, MCCLURE ELEC- TRIC, AYOOB & PERRY, SOUTH CITY MECHANICAL, ZE- LINSKY PAINTING, GINO RINALDI, RUANE PLASTERING, ELECTRICAL WORKERS IBEW LOCAL 6 (INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS) 687 ARTISTIC GLASS, ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY, AND PARISIAN BAKERIES, INC. Based on a hearing before an administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations ]Board in which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the order of the Board and abide by the following. 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 Intercontinental Hotels Cor- poration, Mark Hopkins-Intercontinental Hotel, Mar- chetti Construction, McClure Electric, Ayoob & Perry, South City Mechanical, Zelinsky Painting, Gino Rinaldi, Ruane Plastering, Artistic Glass, Anderson, Rowe & Buckley, Parisian Bakeries, Inc., and other persons en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, ma- terials, or commodities, or to perform any services where an object thereof is to force or require the same persons, or any other persons, to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing with the products of, or to cease doing business with Telarian Corp. or with each other. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain the above- named employers , or any other persons engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require said persons to cease using, selling, handling, transporting , or otherwise deal- ing with the products of, or cease doing business with Telarian Corp. or with each other. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC- TRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 6