Carpenters Local 316 (Thornhill Construction)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1987

283 N.L.R.B. 81 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

CARPENTERS LOCAL 316 (THORNHILL CONSTRUCTION)
Carpenters Local 316 , United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and
Lauren J . Thornhill d/b/a Thornhill Construc-
tion and Gould Trust d/b/a Gould Center and
The Osborn Company , Inc. Cases 32-CC-335,
32-CC-385, and 32-CC-394
26 February 1987
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
STEPHENS AND CRACRAFT
On 8 May 1981 Administrative Law Judge
Gerald A. Wacknov issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed a memoran-
dum in support of the judge's decision.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions, memorandum,
and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rul-
ings, findings, and conclusions' and to adopt the
recommended Order.
In Case 32-CC-394 of the instant consolidated
proceeding, the judge concluded, inter alia, that
the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the
Act when its business agent, Rudy Valente, in-
duced and encouraged individuals employed by a
neutral subcontractor on a common construction
site to stop work and walk off the job in honor of a
picket line established by another union in further-
ance of that Union's primary labor dispute with the
general contractor on the construction project. We
agree.
In Plumbers Local 444 (T S. Hanson Plumbing),
277 NLRB 1231 (1985), the Board concluded that
the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
by fining two members employed by a neutral sub-
contractor because they crossed and worked
behind a lawful primary picket line established by
another union at a common construction jobsite.
Although the specific section of the Act that was
alleged to have been violated in T S. Hanson-
Section 8(b)(1)(A)-is different from the section of
the Act alleged to have been violated in the instant
case-Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B)-the underlying issue
presented in T S. Hanson is presented again here:
whether a union may induce its members to honor
a lawful primary picket line where those members
work for a neutral employer on a common situs at
' At the hearing, the parties stipulated that the General Counsel was
not alleging in Case 31-CC-335 that the Respondent's picketing at the
neutral reserved gate between 27 August and 4 September 1980 was un-
lawful Consequently, we do not affirm the judge's implicit finding that
such picketing during that period of time was unlawful.
81
which no valid system of reserved gates is in
effect . Like the fines in T S. Hanson , the request of
the Respondent 's business representative that indi-
viduals employed by Cal Bay, an undisputedly neu-
tral employer, honor the primary union 's picket
line by leaving the jobsite clearly discloses an ob-
jective proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(B)-to cause
the neutral employer, Cal Bay, to cease doing busi-
ness with the primary employer , Osborn . The Re-
spondent knew that Cal Bay was a neutral in the
Laborers ' primary dispute with Osborn . A natural
and apparent object of the Respondent's request
that individuals employed by Cal Bay honor the
Laborers ' picket line by leaving the jobsite was to
induce and encourage them to stop working for the
neutral Cal Bay and in turn cause Cal Bay to cease
doing business with Osborn.2 Accordingly, we
conclude that the Respondent has violated Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act as alleged in this regard.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent , Carpenters
Local 316, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, San Jose, Califor-
nia, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the Order.
2 See T. S. Hanson, supra, 277 NLRB 1231, Sheet Metal Workers Local
252 (S. L. Miller), 166 NLRB 262 (1967), also cited in T. S. Hanson.
3 In affirming the judge's finding of a violation under these circum-
stances, we do not rely on Teamsters Local 505 (Carolina Lumber), 130
NLRB 1438 (1961), cited by the judge The distinction drawn in that case
between "low level" and "high level" supervisors, in regard to the scope
of the term "individual" in Section 8(b)(4)(i) of the Act, was rejected by
the Supreme Court in NLRB Y. Servette Inc., 377 U S 46 (1964)
There the Court held that the applicability of Section 8(b)(4)(i) to su-
pervisors turns on whether the union 's appeal to the supervisor is to
cease performing his employment services, or is an appeal for the exer-
cise of the supervisor 's managerial discretion In the instant case, we find
that the Respondent's business agent Valente unlawfully appealed to Cal
Bay's foreman Mobley to cease performing his employment services for
Cal Bay.
Bernard Hopkins, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Michael B. Roger, Esq. (Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg and
Roger), of San Francisco, California, for the Respond-
ent.
Mark R. Thierman, Esq., of San Francisco, California,
for Thornhill Construction Co. and The Osborn Com-
pany, Inc.
Michael Riccitiello, Esq. (Littler, Mendelson, Fwastiff &
Tichy), of San Francisco, California, for Gould Trust
d/b/a Gould Center and Century West Builders.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GERALD A. WACKNOv, Administrative Law Judge.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing with respect to this matter
283 NLRB No. 16
82 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was held before me in San Jose, California, on January 8,
1981. The initial charges in Cases - 32-CC-335, 32-CC-
385, 32-CC-394, and 32-CB-795 were filed on July 10;
August 18, September 24, 1979, and July 10, 1980,1 re-
spectively.
Thereafter, various complaints and amendments there-
to were issued on July 31, September 17, 23, and 30, and
December 18, by the Regional` Director for Region 32 of
the `National Labor Relations Board (Board), alleging
violations by United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Join-
ers of America, AFL-CIO,'Local 316 (Respondent), of
Section 8(b)(1)(A)2 and (4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act).
The parties were afforded a full opportunity to be
heard, to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce relevant evidence. Since the close of the
hearing, briefs have been received from the General
Counsel, counsel for Respondent, and counsel represent-
ing both Thornhill Construction Company and the
Osborn Company, Inc.
On the entire record, and based on my observation of
the witnesses and consideration of the briefs submitted, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted that the Union is, and- has been at all
times material herein, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
1. Thornhill Construction Co. (Case 32-CC-335)
In June, Thornhill Construction Co.,3 a framing con-
tractor, was hired as a- contractor on a condominium
project in San Jose, California: On June 19, prior to the
commencement of Thornhill's work on the job, Re-
spondent's business representative, Rudy Valente, -visited
the jobsite and advised David Larimer, president of New
West Associates, owner of the condominium project,
that Thornhill was unwilling to sign a successor contract
with the Union and that Larimer could, therefore, expect
picketing on the job when Thornhill began work.
On July 9,, the day that Thornhill commenced work
on the site, Valente appeared at the jobsite and ques-
' All dates or time periods herein are within 1980 unless otherwise
specified.
2 Following the close of the hearing, the parties entered into a settle-
ment agreement involving this matter, namely, Case 32-CB-795, and on
March 23, 1981, I issued an order serving ,cases, remanding Case 32-CB-
795 to the Regional Director for purposes of compliance with the terms
and provisions of the settlement agreement
a Thornhill Construction Co. is a_sole proprietorship with its principal
place of business in San Jose, California In the course and conduct of its
business operations, Thornhill Construction Co. annually provides goods
and services in excess of $50,000 to customers meeting one of the Board's
jurisdictional standards other than the indirect inflow or indirect outflow
standard. It is admitted, and I find, that Thornhill Construction Co is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act
tioned several Thornhill employees about their lack of
union membership.
Later that day, according to the testimony of Larimer,
the following conversation occurred between Larimer,
Larry Thornhill, owner of Thornhill Construction Co.,
and Valente:
And he [Valente] turned to me and he said, what
are you going to do? And I said, well, I'm just
trying to build my construction project. And I said,
what are you going to do? And he said, all I want
to do is get Larry [Thornhill] to sign. And then he
turned to Larry and pointed at me, and said this
man's going to sue you if you can't finish. And I
shook my head at that. And then Rudy [Valente]
looked out the window and he said,-he looked out
the door and he said, I'm not going to give Larry
shit on this job. I'm not going to be easy on him.--I
want him to sign the agreement, and I want the job
to be finished by Union carpenters. We want a-the
Unions will all stick together and if Larry-I have
the pickets right out in the car, I'll bring them out
right now. And your job won't go one step further
than it is right now.
Then there ensued some conversation between Valente
and Larimer regarding obtaining a union framing con-
tractor for the job. During this portion of the conversa-
tion, Valente told Larimer that the job would never get
finished if Thornhill did not sign the agreement. Larimer
indicated an intention to establish a reserve gate system,
and testified that Valente replied:
[t]hat doesn't matter. Gates don't matter. We don't
picket gates, we picket job sites. And I have the
pickets right out in the car and they'll be here to-
morrow unless Larry signs.
The next morning, July 10, Respondent's pickets ar-
rived at the jobsite, and shortly thereafter a reserve gate
system was established by Larimer. Respondent's agents,
including Valente, nevertheless picketed in front of the
neutral gate reserved for employees, personnel, and visi-
tors of persons other than Thornhill. On the same day,
Larimer sent a telegram to Respondent, advising that a
reserve gate system had been established, and requesting
that the Union confine its picketing to the gate reserved
for Thornhill. Nevertheless, Respondent picketed exclu-
sively at the neutral gate from July 10 to July 14.
Thereafter, Respondent primarily confined' its picket-
ing activity to the gate reserved for Thornhill. However,
when a vehicle or person would approach and enter the
project through the neutral gate, the pickets would walk
over to that gate,, write- down the vehicle's license
number, and remain there while the delivery was being
completed. I credit Larimer's unrebutted testimony that
such conduct continued prior to August 27.
On August 27, Larimer used a forklift to bring lumber
for Thornhill through the neutral gate, Thereupon, the,
Union commenced picketing the neutral gate, and on
September 4, 1980, the Union was advised by telegrams
that there would be no further tainting of the reserve
CARPENTERS LOCAL 316 (THORNHILL CONSTRUCTION) 83
gate system. Thereafter, picketing continued at both
gates until October 1980 when an injunction was granted
by the United States district court, enjoining picketing at
the neutral gate. Picketing at the gate reserved for
Thornhill continued until late November, and ceased fol-
lowing the outcome of a decertification election until late
November, and ceased following the outcome of a decer-
tification election among Thornhill's employees. Valente
was not called as a witness in this proceeding.
2. Gould Trust d/b/a Gould Center (Case 32-CC-
385)
On August 11, Respondent' s business representative,
Elmer Phillips, approached Mark Allen, job superintend-
ent for Century West Builders, Inc.,4 the general con-
tractor for a restaurant construction project in San Jose,
California. Phillips asked Allen whether certain employ-
ees who were employees of Construction Trends, the
carpentry subcontractor, were union members. Allen
told Phillips to ask the employees directly. On learning
that the employees were not union members, Respondent
commenced picketing the project the following day.
The picket sign was attached to a mobile home vehicle
that was parked at the main entrance to the shopping
center, known as the Gould Shopping Center and owned
by E. Gould, where the restaurant construction was
taking place. The picket sign stated that E. Gould fails to
meet established wages and benefits established by the
Carpenters Local 316.
Reserved gates were established on the second day of
the picketing. A telegram sent to the Union about
August 14, advised that gate 1 was reserved for the ex-
clusive use of E. Gould and Century West Builders, Inc.
and warned the Union to confine its picketing to gate 1.
However, only Gould',s name initially appeared on the
sign at gate 1, and sometime thereafter, Century West's
name appeared. Finally, on August 28, Construction
Trend's name was also placed on the reserved gate sign
at gate 1. Also on this latter date, Century West sent a
telegram to the Union advising that` Construction Trends
and its suppliers were to use gate 1 exclusively. Appar-
ently, the Union picketed at gate 1 during all times mate-
rial herein. In addition to picketing at gate 1, however,
the Union did not, immediately remove its vehicle, bear-
ing the aforementioned picket sign , from the main en-
trance to the shopping center, some 110 feet from gate 1.
The vehicle remained at this location for about a week
following August '14.
In late August, Century West's job Superintendent,
Mark Allen, unlocked gate 2, the gate apparently re-
served for employers other than Gould, Century West,
and Construction Trends, in order to permit the concrete
contractor, J. C. Lomas Company, to enter the site.
Thereupon, according to Allen, who observed but did
not overhear the ' conversation, Business Representative
Phillips and the individual who had been picketing at
4 Century West Builders, Inc is a California corporation with offices
located in California, And annually performs construction services valued
in excess of $50,000 for customers located outside the State of California
It is admitted; and I find, that Century West Builders, Inc is an employer
engaged in commerce Within the meaning of Sec 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act
gate l approached and spoke to an employee of J. C.
Lomas near gate 2. Immediately thereafter, the employee
approached Allen and advised him that he was leaving
the project as he feared being fined if he came on the
job, and presented Allen with a pamphlet that had been
given to him by Phillips. Allen read the pamphlet that he
paraphrased at the hearing as stating that "when a good
union man sees a picket, he doesn't ask questions but just
leaves." Thereupon, Allen, in the presence of Phillips,
suggested that the employee call his employer on the CB
radio in the truck. The employee contacted J. C. Lomas
on the CB and explained the situation to him. Then there
ensued a conversation between Phillips and Lomas over
the CB. Allen overheard Phillips, who appeared angry,
mention some sort of agreement between Lomas and
Phillips and accused Lomas of breaking the agreement.
Phillips, according to the uncontroverted testimony of
Allen, said that he had a long memory, and the matter
would not be forgotten. Phillips was not called as a wit-
ness.
3. The Osborn Company, Inc. (Case 32-CC--394)
In mid-July, the Laborers Union picketed The Osborn
Company, Inc.,5 the general contractor at a condomini-
um construction site in San Jose, California. The carpen-
try subcontractor on the job was Cal Bay Builders with
whom Respondent maintained a collective-bargaining re-
lationship. On September 2, Rudy Valente, Respondent's
business agent, approached Cal Bay Builders' working
foreman, Vern Mobley, and requested that Mobley and
his crew honor the picket line established by the Labor-
ers Union. Mobley phoned Cal Bay Builders ' general
manager, Steven Fisk, and reported the matter, where-
upon Fisk directed Mobley to instruct the employees to
leave the jobsite, while Fisk attempted to get the matter
resolved with Respondent.
On the afternoon of September 2, Fisk phoned Valente
and asked why Valente had requested that his employees
leave the site, and how the problem could be resolved.
Valente replied, according to Fisk, that there was a sanc-
tioned Laborers Union picket on the job and that the
matter could be resolved by Fisk's honoring of the
picket line. Valente further stated that if Fisk, or appar-
ently Cal Bay Builders' employees, crossed the picket
line, Fisk could be subject to "further assessments." Fisk
testified that Valente did not go into detail and left the
matter very vague. Valente was not called as a witness.
Cal Bay Builders did not work on September 2, but
the carpentry crew commenced work the following day
with no further incidents.
5 The Osborn Company, Inc. is a California corporation with its prin-
cipal place of business located in Santa Clara, California, and is engaged
in the business of real estate development and construction During the
last fiscal year, Osborn performed services valued in excess of $800,000
for the United States Navy, and its operations have a substantial impact
on the National Defense of the United States. It is admitted, and I find,
that Osborn is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Sec 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act
84 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Analysis and Conclusions
1. Thornhill Construction Co. (Case 32-CC-335)
It is clear, and Respondent proffered no contrary evi-
dence, that Respondent, including Respondent's business
representative Rudy Valente, picketed at the neutral gate
reserved for persons other than employees and suppliers
of the primary employer, Thornhill Construction Com-
pany. Moreover, even on belatedly moving its picket to
the appropriate gate after about 4 days of picketing at
the neutral gate, Respondent continued to picket the neu-
tral , gate during periods when deliveries were being
made through that gate. Such picketing, under the cir-
cumstances, is conclusive evidence of an unlawful objec-
tive. Further, Business Representative Valente's state-
ment to David Larimer, an official of New West Associ-
ates, a neutral employer, that reserved gates' did not
matter, and that Respondent intended to picket the job-
site, rather than any particular gate,' clearly constituted a
threat to engage in unlawful picketing. Sailors Union
(Moore Dry Dock), 92 NLRB 547, 549 (1950); Carpenters
Sacramento Area District Council' (Malek Construction),
244 NLRB 890 (1979).
Nor, as contended by Respondent, does the fact that
New West Associates provided a job shack, electrical
current, portable toilets, and water used by Thornhill
and other subcontractors, and purchased finished lumber,
doors, and millwork for Thornhill establish that New
West Associates was an ally of Thornhill or that the two
entitles thereby maintained coemployer or joint venture
relationship. See Carpenters Sacramento Area District
Council, supra.The cases cited by Respondent in support
of its ally defenses are inapposite.6 Thus, contrary to the
contention of Respondent, these cases do not establish
that a neutral employer that purchases materials for and
acts as a supplier of the primary employer by bringing
materials onto the jobsite, thereby becomes an ally of the
primary employer.
Nor does the fact that the owner of New West Associ-
ates used either gate for his personal ingress or egress in-
validate the reserved gate system. Broadcast Employees
NABET Local 31 (CBS Inc.), 237 NLRB 1370, 1378
(1978), enfd. 631 F.2d 944 (D.C: Cir. 1980); Carpenters
Local 639 (American Modulars), 203 NLRB 1112, 1118
(1973).
I, therefore, find that by the aforementioned conduct,
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act, as alleged.
2. Gould Trust d/b/a Gould Center (Case 32-CC-
385)
The General Counsel maintains that Respondent's ille-
gal objective is demonstrated by its failure to conform its
picketing to Moore Dry Dock standards.7 In particular,
6 Operating Engineers Local 450 (Linbeck Construction), 219 NLRB 997
(1975), enfd . 550 F 2d 311 (5th Cir . 1977), Electrical Workers IBEW Local
323 (J F Hoff Electric), 241 NLRB 694 (1979), enfd 642 F2d 1266 (D C.-
Cir 1980)
7 Sailors Union (Moore Dry Dock), supra
the General Counsel contends that the picket sign erro-
neously named Gould rather than Construction Trends
as the employer with which ' the Respondent has a pri-
mary labor dispute. Further, the General Counsel argues
that the fact that Respondent picketed the main entrance
of the Gould Shopping Center, in addition to the re-
served gate set aside for Gould and others, establishes an
unlawful secondary objective.
I find that, given the state of the record herein, the
evidence is unclear that the Respondent knew or was
ever timely advised of the identity of the primary em-
ployer, Construction Trends. Indeed, it appears that even
several weeks after the_ reserved gates were established,
Gould led Respondent to believe that Century West
Builders employed the carpenters on the job and, insofar
as the record shows, it was not until August 28 that the
name of Construction Trends was even specifically men-
tioned to Respondent. Moreover, as the telegram of
August 14 directed that Respondent's picketing activity
be confined only to Gould and Century West Builders, it
would appear reasonable for Respondent to conclude
that its continued picketing at the main entrance of the
shopping center, owned by Gould was likewise permissi-
ble.
However, I further find that Respondent's unlawful
objective has been demonstrated by the conduct of Busi-
ness Representative Phillips who sought to cause an em-
ployee of neutral employer. J. C. Lomas Company, the
concrete contractor, to leave the job. Moreover, Phillips
also threatened Lomas with breaching an agreement and,
in effect, with unspecified reprisals should Lomas contin-
ue pouring concrete at the site. Although Mark Allen,
job superintendent for Century West Builders, did not
overhear but rather merely observed the conversation
between Phillips and an employee of J. C. Lomas Com-
pany, and overheard only -Phillips' remarks over the CB
to Lomas, the record clearly establishes that Allen,
whom I credit, was a precipient witness to what tran-
spired herein, and that Allen's testimony is sufficient,
under the circumstances, to support the finding of a vio-
lation. Respondent has presented no evidence that would
negate the import of Allen's testimony. Moreover, I
draw an adverse influence from Phillips' failure to testi-
fy.8 I, therefore, conclude that the fair interpretation of
Allen's testimony warrants the determination that Phil-'
lips engaged in conduct violative of the Act, and thus
find that Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B)
and (ii)(B) of the Act as alleged. See Technical Engineer-
ing Division Local 130 (National Survey Services), 204
NLRB 348 (1973); Iron Workers Local 597 (Linebeck
Construction), 208 NLRB 524 (1974).
3. The Osborn Company (Case 32-CC-394)
I credit the unrebutted testimony of Steven Fisk, gen-
eral manager of Cal Bay Builders, a neutral employer;
performing work at the construction site in question, and
find that during the'September 2 telephone conversation,
Respondent's business agent, Rudy Valente, in effect ac-
knowledged that he'I had requested Cal Bay Builders' em-
8 Martin Luther King Sr. Nursing Center, 231 NLRB 15 fn 1 (1977)
CARPENTERS LOCAL 316 (THORNHILL CONSTRUCTION) 85
ployees to leave the job earlier that day. Such a request
even though directed to a low-level supervisor on the
job, namely, Vern Mobley, is violative of Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. Teamsters Local 505 (Carolina
Lumber), 130 NLRB 1438 (1961). Moreover, I find coer-
cive, under the circumstances Valente's unexplained ref-
erence, during the same telephone conversation, of "fur-
ther assessment," directed to Fisk. This is particularly
true in the absence of any testimony by Valente that
would tend to explain or clarify such, ambiguous lan-
guage. I, therefore, find that Valente's statement consti-
tuted a threat and was calculated to cause Cal Bay
Builders to cease work at the site in furtherance of Re-
spondent's unlawful objective. I, therefore, conclude that
by the foregoing conduct Respondent has also violated
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act, as alleged.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Thornhill Construction Co., Century West Builders,
Inc. and The Osborn Company, Inc. are employers and
persons engaged in commerce and in operations affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(1), (2), (6),
and (7) and Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
2. Carpenters Local 316, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed
by New West Associates, J. C. Lomas Company, Cal
Bay Builders, or other persons engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a' strike
or refusal in the course of their employent to use, manu-
facture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work
on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to
perform services; and by threatening, coercing, and re-
straining the above-named persons, or other persons en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, with an object of forcing or requiring the above-
named persons to cease doing business with Thornhill
Construction Co., Construction Trends, and The Osborn
Company, Carpenters Local 316, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Carpenters Local 316, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B) of the Act. I shall recommend that it be or-
dered to cease and desist therefrom, and that it take such
affirmative action as will effectuate the purposes of the
Act.
The General Counsel and counsel for the various em-
ployers maintain that Respondent's conduct warrants the
imposition of a broad order rather than an order limited
only to the employers herein. I agree, Thus, it has been
found that the Respondent,' on various dates between
July 10 and September 2, 1980, repeatedly engaged in
clear violations of the Act affecting numerous employers
and construction sites within the San Jose, California
area. Under the circumstances herein, I find that Re-
spondent's proclivity to violate the Act has been amply
demonstated, and that, therefore, the requested remedy is
clearly warranted. See Sequoia District Council c f Carpen-
ters (Lattanzio Enterprises), 206 NLRB 67 (1973); Team-
sters Local 945 (Newark Disposal), 232 NLRB 1 (1979),
enfd. mem. 586 F.2d 835 (3d Cir. 1978).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed9
ORDER
The Respondent, Carpenters Local 316, United Broth-
erhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed
by New West Associates, J. C. Lomas Company, Cal
Bay Builders, or any other person engaged in commerce ,
or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a
strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use,
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or
work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities
or to perform any services where an object thereof is to
force or require the persons, or any other person, to
cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise
dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business
with Thornhill Construction Co., Construction Trends,
or The Osborn Company.
(b) In any manner threatening, coercing, or restraining
New ' West Associates, J. C. Lomas Company, Cal Bay
Builders or any other person engaged in commerce or in
any industry affecting commerce, where an object there-
of is to force or require said persons to cease using, sell-
ing, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the
products of, or cease doing business with, Thornhill
Construction Co., Construction Trends, or The Osborn
Company.
(c) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed
by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry af-
fecting commerce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the
course of his employment to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, ar-
ticles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any serv-
ices; or threatening, coercing, or restraining any person
engaged in commerce; where in either case, an object
thereof is to force or require any person to cease doing
business with any other person engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting, commerce.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its office and meeting halls copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."10 Copies of the
9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
10 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
Continued
86 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 32 , after being signed by the- Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Carpenters Local 316;
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material:
(b) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 32,
signed copies of the notice in sufficient number for post-
ing by the employers involved herein, should they be
willing , at all locations where notices to their employees
are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within, 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
TO ALL MEMBERS OF CARPENTERS LOCAL 316, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMER-
ICA, AFL-CIO
TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF NEW WEST ASSOCIATES, J. C.
LOMAS COMPANY, CAL BAY BUILDERS, AND OTHER EM-
PLOYERS
The National Labor Relations Board has found that
we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has
ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT, nor will our officers, business, repre-
sentatives, business agents, or anyone acting for us, what-
ever his title may be, engage in or induce or encourage
any individual employed by New West Associates, J. C.
Lomas Company, Cal Bay Builders or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of
employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or
otherwise handle work on any goods, articles, materials,
or commodities, or to perform any services, where an
object thereof is to force or require the above-named em-
ployers or any other person engaged in commerce or in
an industry affecting commerce to cease using, selling,
handling , transporting , or otherwise dealing in the prod-
ucts of, or cease doing business with Thornhill Construc-
tion Co., Construcion Trends, or The Osborn Company.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or, restrain New West
Associates, J. C. Lomas Company, Cal Bay Builders, or
any other employers engaged in commerce or in an in-
dustry affecting, commerce where an object thereof is'to
force or require the employers or any other persons en-
gaged in commerce ,to cease using, selling , handling,
transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or
cease doing business with,, Thornhill Construction Co.,
Construction Trends, or The Osborn Company.
WE WILL NOT in any manner prohibited `by Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act,
threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in Com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce, or induce or
encourage any individual employed by any person en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
for a proscribed object.
CARPENTERS LOCAL 316, UNITED BROTH-
ERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO