Laborers International Union Of North America, Afl-Cio, Local No. 389

570 -DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 389 and Calcon Construc- tion Company. Cases 20-CC-2932 and 20-CC- 2993 16 December 1987 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND BABSON On 6 October 1987 Administrative Law Judge Joan Wieder issued the attached decision. The Re- spondent 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,' 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 , Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local No . 389, its officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall take the' action set forth in the Order. ' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings Boren Chertkov, Esq., for the General Counsel. Paul Supton, Esq. (Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger & Rosen- feld), of San Francisco, California, for the Respondent. Roger Mason, Esq. (Thierman, Simpson & Cook), of San Jose, California, for the Charging Party. DECISION ' STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOAN WIEDER, Administrative Law Judge . I heard this case in San Francisco, California, on 22 June and 3 August 1987 . The consolidated complaint is based on charges filed by Calcon Construction Company (Calton) on 27 May 1986 and 9 January 1987,' respectively. The allegation is that Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local No 389 (Respondent or Union) violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act by engaging in common situs picketing of Calcon in South San Francisco , California, ' Unless otherwise indicated, all references to activities in March through June occurred in 1986 and those in January occurred in 1987 with the object of forcing or requiring neutral employ- ers, including subcontractors, from doing business with Calcon. Specifically, the complaint asserts that Respond- ent violated the Act by picketing the common situs on 27-30 May, 4 and 6 June, and 9, 12, 'and 13 January with signs that did not identify the primary employer. Respondent denies the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. The Union admits in its answer, as amended at trial, that it is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and also admits that the primary employer, Calcon, meets one of the Board's applicable discretionary jurisdictional standards and is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Accordingly,, I find that assertion of jurisdiction will effectuate the policies of the Act. On the entire record, and from my observation of the demeanor of the witness, and having considered the timely filed briefs of the Union and the General Counsel, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Calcon is a general contractor engaged in the con- struction of an Embassy Suites Hotel in South San Fran- cisco, California. Construction commenced in September 1985. The jobsite has three entrances, denominated during the trial as gates 1 and 2, on Gateway Boulevard and gate 1 on Corporate Boulevard.2 At various times, as here pertinent, the construction site was picketed by one or more unions simultaneously. This proceeding in- volves only- alleged violations of the Act by Respondent Laborers Local 389 The other unions picketing the con- struction site were identified as the Teamsters, Carpen- ters, IBEW, and Operating Engineers. There was only one witness, Jeffrey Palmer, Calcon's project manager. About 24 March, Palmer met Jim Bender, who Respondent admits is its assistant business agent. Bender gave Palmer his card and asked Palmer if he "was ready to sign a contract yet." There were indi- viduals Palmer identified as Laborers who were in "close proximity" to signs lying on the ground in a manner that could be read by passers-by. The signs identified the Union but not the employer that was the subject of the dispute.4 Specifically, the sign read: "NAME OF CON- TRACTOR," a blank space, and 'underneath that "UNFAIR LABORERS." There was no local number on the sign. Thereafter, Palmer saw Bender at the jobsite 2 The gates to the project were identified for the sole purpose of de- scribing the jobsite , although there was a reserved gate system in force at all times here pertinent, there is no allegation that Respondent 's picketing violated the Act by contravening the reserved gate system Also, at times, the witness failed to identify which gate I was referred to in his testimony For clarity of the record , where the gate I location was de- scribed, I mention the street name All references to gate 2 refer to a lo- cation on Gateway Boulevard 3 Also present during this conversation was Jim Gustafson , who was identified as an employee of the Carpenters Union 4 There is no allegation that this activity constituted a violation of the Act 287 NLRB No. 58 LABORERS LOCAL '389 '(CALCON CONSTRUCTION) on an almost daily basis in April, May, and June 1986 and January 1987 ' Prior to 27 May, the Union had a dispute with'two or more subcontractors at the jobsite, Hordyk and 'Viking. The Union picketed the jobsite in April and May, when these subcontractors were present, with"signs that named the companies with whom they had a dispute. Palmer testified without challenge that the sign read' "NAME OF COMPANY" and on the blank space thereunder, someone filled 'in "HORDYK EXCAVATION" and then "UNFAIR LABORERS." Three men identified as Laborers from the signs they carried at this time were denominated by Palmer as "Red Cap, the black and the Hispanic According' to' Palmer, ' he believes he saw the Black and' Hispanic men carrying signs for the Laborers which read "WAGES AND CONDITIONS BELOW STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY LABORERS," and underneath this statement it identified Calcon as the Employer and Laborers Union 389 as the Union Near the end of May, the Charging Party advised the Union that Hordyk and Viking were leaving the job, and Re- spondent stopped its picketing of those companies. Hordyk and Viking left the jobsite prior to 27 May. B. Events in May and June 1986 Palmer, who works from 6.30 a.m to 5 p m., saw Bender when he arrived at work on 27 May at gate 2. Bender was in the company of three or four other, men, one of whom Palmer recognized as frequently accompa- nying Bender by his red cap and blue jacket. Also present were the black and Hispanic men. Palmer' identi- fied all picketers' union affiliations by the signs they car- ried or their,proximity to posted signs. Palmer noticed a sign lying on the ground that read: NAME OF COMPANY UNFAIR ` LABORERS' Red Cap was standing next to the sign. Bender was ob- served frequently driving Red Cap to the jobsite ' Palmer did hot' observe or otherwise know who placed the sign next to the gate or who removed it. The blank on the sign for the insertion of a company name was not filled in. The sign was lying on a steep grade adjacent to gate 2 in a position where it could be read from the street, Gateway Boulevard The sign and its location is similar to the Union's practices he observed in March. Palmer asked Bender, "if he could not make up his mind who he was going to picket,that day." Bender replied, "He was waiting to see what subcontractors I was bringing on the job." Palmer did not inform Bender who the subcontrac- tors were on the jobsite or who employed laborers 5 On 5 While Palmer claims he did not try to trap Respondent into a viola- tion of the Act, he did admit in his affidavit On Friday, May 23rd, 1986, I decided to let the Laborers Union help make my decision for me whether to continue attempting to perform portions of the project using contractors signed to union agreements or whether to simply build the project nonunion I contacted 571 27-30 May 'and 4 and 6 June;'Calcon employed at the jobsite' individuals' who performed the work of laborers. There'-were several different picket'signs carried by between 20 to 25 persons later in the day The signs read "RAT JOB" and "SCABS GO HOME." Palmer noticed five to eight pickets for the Carpenters at gate 1, as well as the business agent for Teamsters Local 216, an individual called Fitzpatrick, but he is not sure if any Teamsters picketed that day. He also observed pickets at gate 2 whom he could not identify with any union He believes that there were pickets for the IBEW at gate 1 that day Although Palmer identified Red Cap as a representa- tive or agent of the Laborers Union, he admitted identi- fying him as the individual who carried a Teamsters picket sign in, June, in an affidavit, but when he testified he claimed he was not sure that the man he observed in June was "Red Cap" without the red cap but wearing a blue jacket. When Palmer arrived at the jobsite on 28 May, he ob- served about 15 signs, none of which had the name of an employer, company, contractor, or subcontractor on them. The signs variously read "LOW PAY," "NO FRINGE IS DUMB," "WE'RE MAD AS HELL," "RAT JOB," "SCABS GO HOME," "ORGANIZED TO DISORGANIZE," "LOW PAY ' AND' NO FRINGES IS DUMB," and "CALCON EMPLOYEES SCABS " Palmer, could not identify . who carried the signs or what union they represented He did observe Red Cap at gate 2, and the previously described "unfair laborers" sign lying against the bank, the sign that did not contain the name of a company. He did not see any sign with the Laborers named thereon carried this day or on 27 or 28 May. Bender was also present from about 7 a.m. to noon Gustafson was at gate 1 on Gateway brief- ly that morning. He does not recall seeing a business agent from the IBEW or Teamsters that day The individuals Palmer identified as Carpenters were at gate 1, sitting in lawn chairs near signs that were stuck in the ground On 29 May Palmer noticed, when he arrived at the jobsite, three to five people standing at gate 2, including Red Cap and Bender. Picket signs that read "RAT JOB" and "SCABS GO HOME" were being carried by some of the picketers. Palmer did not recognize any of the pickets as representing the IBEW or the Teamsters. He did identify Red Cap and another as representing the La- borers and he saw' a sign that contained a reference to Pumpco (P-U-M-P-C-O) of California, the contractor I had contract- ed to pump the concrete from the Redi-max supplier unto [sic] the project where it would be handled by employees of Viking concrete [an employer different than the Viking Respondent had the labor dis- pute with prior to 27 May] I did not intend to perform a pour on Tuesday, May 27th, 1986 However, I requested Pumpco to provide a pump and one man on Tuesday morning, May 27th, 1986 The sole purpose in having Pumpco provide a pump on that was to see whether the Laborers Union would picket, regardless of a lawful reason The conversation with Bender on 27 May occurred before the Pumpco truck arrived There is no evidence that Pumpco's name was later insert- ed in the blank space on the sign Palmer did not tell Bender that he ex- pected the Pumpco vehicle later that day He did not feel he had an obli- gation to so inform the Union 572 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Laborers Union, which was not carried He also identified two pickets at gate 1 as representatives of the Carpenters When Palmer arrived at the job on 30 May, he again saw pickets carrying signs proclaiming "RAT JOB" at gate 2 He could not identify the person carrying the sign or recall if it identified the Carpenters as the picket- ing union Palmer did observe Bender conversing with the pickets When asked if Gustafson of the Carpenters Union was present, Palmer replied that he could not recall, he may have been He did see Fitzpatrick, the business agent for the Teamsters, that day at the jobsite but could not recall if Jim Derby, the business agent for the Operating Engineers, was also present There were individuals carrying signs that identified the Teamsters Union and he saw signs identifying the Carpenters Union, but he could not remember if these were carried or posted Palmer saw Red Cap on 4 and 6 June with about three other persons near two signs that were placed on the steep grade near gate 2, as previously described. The signs read- "RAT JOB" and "NAME OF THE COM- PANY," a blank underneath, and at the bottom, "UNFAIR LABORERS " He did not see who placed the picket signs near the gate. On 4 June, although other pickets were present, he did not see anyone he thought was from a craft other than Laborers standing near these signs He did see other crafts on 6 June, but none were patrolling, all the signs were posted For example, there was a Carpenters sign stuck in the ground near gate 1. On reflection, Palmer then testified that he thought IBEW pickets were present this day and they always carried their signs There were also Teamsters Union pickets at the jobsite on 4 and 6 June He saw Fitzpa- trick and Gustafson on 4 June talking to pickets. On cross-examination, Palmer also admitted that he saw, Red Cap at the jobsite on one or more days during 21, 22, and 23 December He could not recall if he saw either the black or Hispanic man at this time, but after having his memory refreshed from an affidavit, he re called that on 22 December a driver for Silvey Trans- portation told him that the same black man he identified as a Laborers representative spoke to him about the IBEW's picketing The Carpenters Union was also pick- eting at this time. Although he could not recall clearly if Bender was present on these 3 days in December, he be- lieves Bender visited the jobsite daily. On 27, 28, 29, and 30 May and 4 and 6 June, Consoli- dated Engineering, a testing service which is a subcon- tractor with Calcon, was present at the jobsite. C Events in January 1987 - Palmer observed picketing he attributed to the Labor- ers on 9, 12, and 13 January 1987. On 9 January, when he arrived at the Jobsite early in the morning, he saw two men whom he identified as Laborers based on the signs they carried, which read- "WAGES AND CON- DITIONS BELOW STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABOR- ERS, UNION 389." Palmer took a picture of the sign on 13 January at a location about 130 feet from the property line The sign was on the outside of a parked van and the individual identified as the black man was sitting in the driver's seat. There is no claim that any other union had the Local designation 389. The Union stipulated that the language on the signs was the same for all 3 days in question in January. The signs did not have the name of any employer, contractor, or subcontractor. He recognized the picketers as those he observed with Bender in May 1986. They were the black and Hispanic men. He also saw Bender conversing with them on this date, 9 January They were carrying the signs, first at gate 1 on Gateway Boulevard and then they ,moved be- tween that gate and, gate 1 on Corporate Boulevard. They did not picket at gate 2. He did not know the pick- eters' names or who employed, them On 12 and 13 January Palmer saw three pickets he identified as Laborers. He saw the black and Hispanic men carrying picket signs identifying "Laborers 389" as part, of the legend and he also saw Red Cap. Not all three men patrolled on these 2 days On 12 January the black man stood by a fire hydrant about 40 feet from a Gateway Boulevard entrance and on 13 January he sat in the previously described van On these dates,' as on 9 January, these men picketed between the two gate l's, not at gate 2: On these dates the two'gate l's were re- served for Calcon. The subcontractors present on the jobsite these 3 days were- Delta Electric; Consolidated Engineering; Precision Mechanical; and Cucksey Equip- ment. On one or more of these days,- the IBEW was also picketing at gate 1, and on 12 January Palmer believes he saw Gustafson talking to pickets, but he never saw him talk to Red Cap or the Hispanic or black man. All the unions alternated picketing positions between the two gate l's They were not segregated from one another D Discussion and Conclusions 1. Applicable principles Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) of the Act states in perti- nent part that it is an unfair labor practice for a labor or- ganization or its agents: (i) . . to induce or encourage any individual em- ployed' by any person . . to engage in a strike . . ; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or' restrain ' any person where in either case the object thereof is:' - (B) forcing or requiring any person, to cease doing business with any other.pe'rson .; Provided, that nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlawful, any . . . primary pick- eting. As noted in NLRB v. Denver Building & Construction Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675 at 692 (1951): These provi- sions of the Act implement "the dual Congressional ob- jectives of preserving the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes and of shielding unoffending employers and others from pressures in controversies not of their own." Cf. National Woodwork Mfrs. Assn. v. NLRB, 386 U.S. 612, 620-627 (1967). LABORERS LOCAL 389 (CALCON CONSTRUCTION) The' object, not the effect, of the picketing is the factor controlling its lawfulness. Electrical Workers IUE Local 761 v. NLRB, 366 U S 667, 672-674 (1961.); Ramey Con- struction Co. v. Painters Local 544, 472 F 2d 1127; 1131 (5th Cir. 1973) In a common situs situation as is present in this case, it is at times difficult to evaluate whether the object of the picketing is to pressure a neutral employer, and thus secondary and unlawful, or if the sole object is to influence the -primary employer, even if neutrals are incidentally affected, which is lawful. Thus unions' are charged with the obligation of making reasonable efforts to minimize the impact of their picketing upon neutrals. NLRB v. Denver Building & Construction Trades Council, supra; NLRB v Nashville Building & Construction Trades Council, 425 F 2d 385 at' 391 (6th Cir 1970); American Bread Co. v. NLRB, 411 F 2d 147, 154 (6th Cir. 1969). As the Court held in Iron Workers Local 433 v., NLRB, 598 F.2d 1154,1159 (9th Cir. 1979), quoting from Ramey Construction Co. v. Painters Local 544, 472 F 2d 1127, 1131 (5th Cir. 1973), the picketing union must "do every- thing that is reasonably necessary to insure that second- ary employees are not misled or coerced into observing the picket line " Accord: Plumbers Local 388, 252 NLRB 452, 460 (1980) "This requirement places a heavy burden on the picketing union to'convince the trier of fact that the picketing was conducted in a manner .least' likely to encourage secondary effects." Ibid. To assist in the determination of the legality of common situs picketing, the Board, set forth the follow- ing criteria in Sailors Union (Moore Dry Dock), 92 NLRB 547, 549 (1950). Picketing . . is primary if it meets the following conditions- (a) The picketing is strictly confined to times when the situs of the.dispute is located on the secondary employer's premises, (b) at the time of the picketing the primary employer is engaged in its normal business on the situs; (c) the picketing is lim- ited to places reasonably close to the location of the situs; and (d) the picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the primary employer Although these criteria are not to be applied mechani- cally, failure to comply with them creates a strong, albeit rebuttable, presumption that the picketing had an unlaw- ful secondary object. Ramey, Construction Co. v. Painters Local 544, supra,, 472 F 2d at 1132; Electrical Workers IUE Local 480 v NLRB, 413,F.2d 1085, 1089 (D.C. Cir. 1969); NLRB v. Laborers Local 185, 389 F 2d 721, 725 (9th Cir. 1968), enfg. 154 NLRB 1384 (1965). These cri- teria are not all inclusive; other relevant factors may be considered in assessing the union's purpose, such as state- ments or actions. The gravamen of the complaint is that Respondent picketed without clearly identifying the primary employ- er as required by the fourth criterion promulgated in Moore Dry Dock, supra, thus its actions are indicative of an unlawful object. The Board defined picketing in Mine Workers District 12 (Truax-Traer Coal), 177 NLRB 213 at 218 (1969), as follows- 573 The definition of the terms "picket" and "picket- ing" as defined in Black's and Bouvier's law dic- tionaries do not mention the use of picket signs or placards or the movements of pickets other than being posted or stationed at a particular place. In NLRB v. Local 182, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Woodward Motors), 314 F 2d 53, 58 (C A 2), the Court quoted Webster's New International Dictionary (2d Ed.) as defining the verb "picket" as meaning "to walk or stand in front of a place of em- ployment as a picket," and the noun as "a person posted by a labor organization at an approach to the place of work" and concluded that any particular movement by the picket was not a necessary ingre- dient of picketing. In none of these definitions is the patrolling or the carrying of signs considered a req- uisite component part of picketing The purpose of picketing in labor disputes is to convey a message which is usually intended to influence the conduct of certain persons to stay away from work or to boycott a product or business, and is frequently ac- complished, as was done herein, by posting individ- uals at the approaches to a place of work Accord. Lumber & Sawmill Workers Local Union No. 2797 (Stoltz Land & Lumber Co.), 156 NLRB 388, 394 (1965). 2 Argument and conclusions The General Counsel argues that when the above- stated principles are applied to the facts of this case, it must be found that Respondent failed to make a reasona- ble effort to minimize the impact of its picketing on neu- trals and thus it violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the Act. ' Respondent initially asserts that no one picketed with a Laborers sign. I find this argument to be without merit for, as previously defined, picketing does not require the holding of a sign while patrolling. Id In this case the signs with Laborers identified on them were placed at or near one or more of the entrances to the common work site in a manner in which they could be read by anyone approaching them Also, in January, individuals patrolled gates to the site carrying signs that identified Respondent as the picketing Union There were individuals stationed nearby or carrying these signs that were identified with- out any refuting testimony as representatives or agents of Respondent. I find their actions constitute pickets and picketing as defined above The signs indisputably did not name the primary em- ployer. The Union's explanation is that on 27 May it was waiting to determine which subcontractors would be working on the site. This explanation does not mitigate its obligation to refrain from displaying the sign until it could determine if a primary employer would be on the site, then placing the employer's name on the sign(s) This excuse also does not explain Respondent's repeated failures to name the primary employer on all the dates considered. Although Respondent infers the general con- tractor had an obligation to inform it of the subcontrac- tors who would be present on the site, there is no legal 574 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or other outcome determinative basis for this assertion, and it is found to be without merit. Further, this- argument overlooks Respondent's admis- sion, explicit in Bender's question of 24 March, that it was seeking. to unionize Calcon so that it would employ its members. Also, Bender admitted in the 27 May con- versation with Palmer that the Laborers picket sign was_ deficient in not naming the primary employer, but Re- spondent persisted in picketing with this sign and others that failed to identify the primary employer(s) on 28, 29, and 30 May, 4 and 6 June 1986, and 9, 12, and 13 Janu- ary 1987 It is also evident that the picketing was designed not only to induce Calcon to sign a contract but to induce employees of subcontractors and other secondary em- ployers who were unionized to withhold their labor from the site. The pickets were present at the commencement of the workday and generally remained until 2 or 2.30 p.m. Respondent did not claim that it made any attempt to determine which subcontractors would be present on the site prior to picketing. The picket signs did not clear- ly convey that it was an organizational campaign against Calcon; the picketing was not shown to have been con- ducted at any subcontractors' business, so the reasonably anticipated effect is that the picketing would affect not the general contractor employees but those of unionized subcontractors I find the Union, at the very least, adopted the unlaw- ful objective demonstrated by these signs as established by Bender's comments of 27 May; his presence on the subsequent days; and the use of signs identifying Re- spondent to picket the common jobsite. The Union cannot now disclaim responsibility for the picketing by the bare claim that the identities of Red Cap and the black and Hispanic men were not established-. These men were clearly associated with Laborers picket signs and were seen in Bender's presence. Thus, their actions iden- tify Respondent as being engaged in picketing with signs that failed to identify the primary employer. Bender, in fact, adopted the use of the sign by his admission on 27 May that Respondent was using the offending signs and intended to fill in the primary employer's name sometime later. I conclude that Bender's actions demonstrate Re- spondent ratified and condoned the use of picket signs that failed to identify the primary employer on the dates in question. See' U.S. Steel Corp. v. Mine Workers, 598 F.2d 363, 365-366 (5th Cir 1979), which found that the actions of a union official determined the culpability of the union for condoning or ratifying illegal picketing. See, generally, Davlan Engineering, 283 NLRB 803 (1987); Jet Port Express, 284 NLRB 739 (1987), and Bio- Medical of Puerto Rico, 269 NLRB 827 (1984). Respondent admitted that the picket signs in January identified it as the picketer. The signs posted near gate 2 on the dates in question during May and June also identi- fied the Laborers as the picketing Union Palmer did- in- dicate that one or more of these pickets may also have acted on behalf of one or more other unions This admis- sion does not warrant a different conclusion. At times pickets are hired by unions and their actions are equally attributable to the union as members or employees. Also, there is no impediment against a representative or agent of one-union acting in the-interest of another. Palmer's testimony on this point, although reticent at times, does not require a different conclusion inasmuch as Respond- ent admitted -to at least some of the above-described picketing and ^ failed to refute Palmer's assertion that signs identifying the Laborers, but not the primary em- ployer; were used to picket the common situs on the dates in question. In fact individuals admittedly carried picket signs iden- tifying Respondent and not identifying the primary em- ployer in January 1987. The same individuals were seen picketing in May and June 1986, using signs that failed to identify the primary employer and- naming the Respond- ent as the picketer. Thus Respondent's claim that the pickets and offending union were not clearly identified is found to be without merit In addition to the above-de- scribed circumstantial evidence identifying Respondent as the sponsor of the picketing, there was no evidence offered to rebut any of the circumstantial evidence. Con- sidering the totality of the circumstances, I conclude that the Union picketed with an unlawful object. Ironworkers Local 433 (United Steel), 280 NLRB 1325 (1986), citing Connecticut Foundry Co., 165 NLRB 916 (1967), and Ironworkers Local.433 v. NLRB, 598 F 2d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 1979). As the object was to effect the actions of employers' subcontractors with whom Respondent did not have a dispute, the picketing by the Laborers clearly had a sec- ondary object and was violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Piezonki v. NLRB, 219 F.2d 879, 883 (4th Cir. 1955). Respondent has not demonstrated the ex- istence of any,unusual circumstances warranting a differ- ent'decision. Cf NLRB v. Carpenters Local Union No. 55, 218 F 2d 226, 230-232 (10th Cir. 1954). Its claim that Calcon schemed to entrap- Respondent by not informing the Union of the subcontractors and having a cement pump-truck come to the site to test the Laborers' reac- tion is not exculpatory. As noted above, Calcon, or any other employer for that matter, has no duty, to inform Respondent of their intentions, and no action was shown to have "entrapped" the Union into unlawful activity. The Union chose to assume the risk of picketing in a manner that Bender's comment clearly demonstrated it knew was improper. The Union must assume the'risks of its own actions and the failure to present any witnesses under the circumstances presented further supports the conclusion that it was not misled by Calcon. Accordingly, I find that by picketing the South San Francisco jobsite on 27, 28, 29, and 30 May, and 4 and 6 June 1986, and 12 and 13 January 1987, with signs that did not identify the primary employer, Respondent en- gaged in common situs picketing with the object of forc- ing neutral employers, including subcontractors, from doing business with Calcon in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) of the Act CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Calcon Construction Company is an employer en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. LABORERS LOCAL 389 (CALCON CONSTRUCTION) 2. Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 389, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By picketing the common situs Executive Suites Hotel construction site in South San Francisco, Califor- nia, with picket signs that did not disclose the employer with whom Local 389 had a dispute, Respondent Union has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) of the Act. 4. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and that it take certain affirmative action de- signed to remedy the unfair labor practices and to effec- tuate the policies of the Act On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- eds ORDER The Respondent, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 389, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from picketing the Executive Suites Hotel construction project in South San Francisco, Cali- fornia, with picket signs that did not disclose the em- ployer with whom Local 389 had a dispute, thereby ex- hibiting as an object the threatening, coercing, or re- straining of neutral secondary employers, including Cucksey Engineering, Precision Mechanical, Consolidat- ed Engineering, and Delta Electric, or any other person to cease doing business with Calcon Construction Com- pany. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its business offices and other places where notices to members are customarily posted copies of the 8 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 575 attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies of the at- tached notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc- tor for Region 20, shall be posted by the Respondent Local 389, after being signed by its authorized represent- ative, and shall be posted for 60 consecutive days in con- spicuous places where notices to members are customari- ly posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered or covered by any material. (b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply. ' If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT picket with signs that do not disclose the employer with whom we have a dispute, or in any manner proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, thereby demonstrating as the object thereof to force or require Cucksey Engineer- ing, Precision Mechanical, Consolidated Engineering and Delta Electric or any other person to cease doing busi- ness with Calcon Construction Company. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce Cucksey Engineering, Precision Mechanical, Con- solidated Engineering, Delta Electric or any other person engaged in commerce with an object of forcing them to cease doing business with Calcon Construction Company. LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 389