INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 560 (COUNTY CONCRETE CORPORATION)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 2015

362 NLRB No. 183 (N.L.R.B. 2015)

362 NLRB No. 183
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
and County Concrete Corporation. Cases 22–
CC–083895, 22–CE–084893, and 22–CC–099341
August 26, 2015
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS MISCIMARRA
AND JOHNSON
On July 26, 2013, Administrative Law Judge Arthur J.
Amchan issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General
Counsel and the Charging Party filed answering briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated 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 (as
amended) and to adopt the recommended Order as modi-
fied and set forth in full below.1
The complaint in this case alleges that the Respondent,
Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Un-
ion), violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of the Act
based on language in a Winter 2013 Update letter (the
Update Letter) the Union sent to neutral construction
contractors. The judge found that the Union violated the
Act in both respects.
As explained below, we find that the Union has
waived any challenge to the judge’s determination that it
violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) by failing to except to the
judge’s 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) finding. Next, for the reasons stat-
ed by the judge and those set forth below, we find that
the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) as alleged.
Finally, for the reasons set forth below, we deny the
General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Default Judg-
ment in previously settled Cases 22–CC–083895 and 22–
CE–084893, without prejudice to the General Counsel
renewing the motion within 14 days from the date of this
Decision and Order.2

1 We amend the judge’s Conclusions of Law consistent with our
findings herein. We modify the judge’s recommended Order to con-
form to the violations found and the Board’s standard remedial lan-
guage, and we shall substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as
modified and in accordance with our decision in Durham School Ser-
vices, 360 NLRB No. 85 (2014).
2 The only case litigated before Judge Amchan during the unfair la-
bor practice hearing was Case 22–CC–099341. Previously, the other
two cases included in the case caption—Cases 22–CC–083895 and 22–
CE–084893—had been resolved by an informal settlement agreement
approved by the Regional Director. Taking the position that the viola-
tions in 22–CC–099341 constitute a breach of the terms of the settle-
1. The 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) allegation
The complaint alleges that the Union, through the Up-
date Letter it sent to signatory contractors, violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) by threatening those contractors with
an object of forcing or requiring them to enter into an
agreement prohibited by Section 8(e) not to do business
with County Concrete.3 In the Update Letter, which is
quoted at length in the attached judge’s decision, the Un-
ion states that “County Concrete Corporation continues
its attempts to seriously undermine redi-mix delivery
area standards” and that “Local 560 will not stand
actionless as County Concrete continues to operate at
substandard wages and economic benefits.” The Update
Letter continues:
Local 560 wishes to remind all AGC Contractors who
are signatory to Local 560 construction contracts that
the contract does place certain expectations upon the

ment agreement, the General Counsel filed a motion to strike portions
of the Respondent’s answer, for summary default judgment, and for the
issuance of Board Decision and Order in Cases 22–CC–083895 and
22–CE–084893. The judge granted the General Counsel’s request to
“forward the matter to the Board for the entry of summary judgment in”
Cases 22–CC–083895 and 22–CE–084893. As a result of the judge’s
action, we deem Cases 22–CC–083895 and 22–CE–084893 severed
from Case 22–CC–099341 and transferred to the Board.
The General Counsel and County Concrete ask the Board to issue a
broad remedial order against the Union, and County Concrete further
asks that a broad order remain in effect for 3 years. The General Coun-
sel also contends that we should require the Union to mail “an appro-
priate notice to all recipients of the ‘Winter 2013 Update.’” At present,
we do not find these remedies necessary, but the General Counsel may
renew his request for these remedies in the event he decides to refile his
motion for default judgment in Cases 22–CC–083895 and 22–CE–
084893.
In his decision, Judge Amchan observed that Judge Lauren Esposito
issued a decision on February 15, 2013, in another proceeding involv-
ing the parties to the instant case, in which she found that the Union
violated Sec. 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by threatening to picket neutral employers
Sharp Concrete Corporation and Macedos Construction with an object
of forcing them to cease doing business with County Concrete. The
Board affirmed Judge Esposito’s finding that the Union violated Sec.
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by threatening to picket Sharpe Concrete, but reversed
her finding that the Union violated Sec. 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by threatening
Macedos Construction. Teamsters Local 560 (County Concrete Corp.),
360 NLRB No. 125 (2014). In his decision in the instant case, Judge
Amchan adopted Judge Esposito’s findings and conclusions “[w]ith
regard to the events tried before Judge Esposito.” We do not rely on
Judge Amchan’s statement to the extent that it relates to any of Judge
Esposito’s findings and conclusions that the Board modified or re-
versed.
3 As relevant here, Sec. 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) makes it “an unfair labor prac-
tice for a labor organization or its agents . . . to threaten, coerce, or
restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, where . . . an object thereof is forcing or requiring any em-
ployer . . . to enter into any agreement . . . prohibited by section 8(e).”
Sec. 8(e), in turn, relevantly provides that it is “an unfair labor practice
for any labor organization and any employer to enter into any contract
or agreement, express or implied, . . . [to] cease doing business with
any other person,” subject to certain provisos inapplicable here.
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contractor in regard to area standards. During the term
of the Local 560 collective bargaining agreement, Lo-
cal 560’s enforcement of the provision will be enforced
through the grievance and arbitration procedure, though
this does not . . . necessarily mean that Local 560 will
not be engaging in area standards picketing in the pres-
ence of County Concrete . . . .
The judge found that the Union, by its Update Letter, was
threatening to enforce paragraph 1(q) of the Union’s 2012–
2013 collective-bargaining agreement with the Associated
General Contractors of New Jersey (CBA). Paragraph 1(q)
of the CBA states:
The employer agrees that it shall accept deliveries of
concrete and aggregate only from drivers who are re-
ceiving wages, fringe benefits and the economic dollar
values of working conditions that are prevailing in the
area, as set by the applicable Teamsters contract for the
concrete, aggregate or other type of delivery then pre-
vailing in the County in which the site is located.
Based on paragraph 1(q) and the Update Letter, the
judge found that the Union violated Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(A). He observed that there “does not seem to
be any question that . . . paragraph 1(q) is a blatant viola-
tion of Section 8(e) . . . .” He also stated that the Union,
in its posttrial brief, “appears to concede that the Winter
2013 Update letter violates Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) in
threatening to enforce paragraph 1(q) of the 2012–2013
contract through the grievance and arbitration procedures
of that contract and that paragraph 1(q) violates Section
8(e).”
The Union does not except to the judge’s finding that
it violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A). The Union argues,
however, that the judge did not have “jurisdiction” to
find that the Union violated Section 8(e) because the
complaint “did not allege conduct in violation of Section
8(e).” The Union also contends that the complaint al-
leged only an 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) violation.
The Union has misconstrued both the text of the com-
plaint and the judge’s analysis. Contrary to the Union’s
contention, the complaint explicitly alleges that the Un-
ion violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A). The complaint also
alleges that the above-quoted language of paragraph 1(q)
constitutes “an agreement . . . prohibited by Section 8(e)
of the Act,” and that the Union, by its Update Letter,
violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) by threatening to force or
require signatory contractors to enter into such an agree-
ment.4 Moreover, to determine whether the Union vio-

4 The Board has long held, with judicial approval, that “the reaffir-
mation of an existing hot cargo arrangement is included within the
meaning of the statutory phrase ‘to enter into’ and is unlawful under
lated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) as alleged, the judge had to
determine whether paragraph 1(q) constitutes “an agree-
ment . . . prohibited by Section 8(e) of the Act.” As not-
ed above, Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) makes it unlawful for a
labor organization to threaten, coerce, or restrain any
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce with an object of forcing or requiring any em-
ployer “to enter into any agreement . . . prohibited by
section 8(e)” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the judge
properly addressed whether paragraph 1(q) was an
agreement prohibited by Section 8(e) as a necessary
predicate to determining whether the Union violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(ii)(A). Again, the Union does not except to
the judge’s finding that it violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A).
Neither does the Union argue that the judge’s predicate
8(e) determination was incorrect on the merits. Accord-
ingly, we find that the Union has waived any challenge
to the judge’s finding that the Union violated Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(A). See Section 102.46(b)(2) of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations (“Any exception to a ruling, find-
ing, conclusion, or recommendation which is not specifi-
cally urged shall be deemed to have been waived.”).
2. The 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) allegation
The complaint also alleges that the Union violated
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), which prohibits labor organiza-
tions from threatening, coercing, or restraining neutral
parties with an object of forcing the neutrals to cease
doing business with an employer with whom the union
has a dispute.5 In this regard, the complaint alleges that
through its Update Letter, the Union, in support of its
dispute with Country Concrete, threatened contractors
Atlas Concrete Corp., Macedos Construction, LLC, Rail-
road Construction Company, Inc., Vollers Excavating &
Construction, and other persons “with picketing of [their]
jobsite[s],” and that an object of the picketing threat “has
been to force or require Atlas, Macedos, Railroad, and
Vollers and other persons to cease handling or otherwise
dealing in the products of, and to cease doing business

Section 8(e), and that a union’s attempt by coercive means to obtain
such reaffirmation from an employer is violative of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(A).” Los Angeles Mailers No. 9, I.T.U. (Hillbro Newspaper
Printing Co.), 135 NLRB 1132, 1137 (1962), enfd. 311 F.2d 121 (D.C.
Cir. 1962).
5 As relevant here, Sec. 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) makes it “an unfair labor prac-
tice for a labor organization or its agents . . . to threaten, coerce, or
restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, where . . . an object thereof is . . . forcing or requiring any
person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise
dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufac-
turer, or to cease doing business with any other person . . . Provided,
That nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make
unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or primary
picketing.”
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 560 (COUNTY CONCRETE CORP.) 3
with [County Concrete].” We affirm the judge’s finding
that the Union violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
As found by the judge, the Update Letter is unlawful
“on its face” under Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). In addition to
the passages quoted in section 1, above, the Update Let-
ter informed signatory contractors that if “you are going
to utilize . . . County Concrete . . . , be well aware that
Local 560 will be showing up at your project with picket-
ing and we will no longer provide you with advanced
notice” (emphasis added). This picketing threat, directed
at neutral employers, constituted clear evidence of the
Union’s secondary objective to coerce the neutral em-
ployers to cease doing business with County Concrete,
the employer with which the Union had a primary dis-
pute.
We reject the Union’s argument that no violation may
be found because it qualified its picketing threat in the
Update Letter with assurances that its picketing would
conform to standards set forth in Sailors’ Union of the
Pacific (Moore Dry Dock), 92 NLRB 547 (1950).6 It is
well settled that “compliance with the Moore Dry Dock
standards does not preclude a finding of unlawful picket-
ing where there is independent evidence of a secondary
objective.” Teamsters Local 560 (County Concrete
Corp.), 360 NLRB No. 125, slip op. at 11 (2014); see
also Service Employees Local 254 (Women & Infants
Hospital), 324 NLRB 743,747 (1997); Electrical Work-
ers Local 441 (Rollins Communications), 222 NLRB 99,
101 (1976). Here, there is independent evidence of such
an unlawful secondary objective. In the same Update
Letter that contained Moore Dry Dock assurances, the
Union reminded signatory contractors of their contractual
agreement, prohibited by Section 8(e), not to accept de-
liveries of concrete and aggregate from drivers who are
not receiving area-standard wages and benefits, and it
singled out County Concrete as a company that “serious-
ly undermines redi-mix delivery area standards.” This
was an unmistakable message to the neutral signatory
contractors to cease dealing in County Concrete’s prod-
ucts and cease doing business with County Concrete, and
it demonstrated a secondary objective behind the Union’s
picketing, notwithstanding its promise to adhere to
Moore Dry Dock standards.

6 Under Moore Dry Dock, picketing at a secondary situs is presump-
tively lawful if it is limited to times when the primary employer is
engaged in its normal business at the site, the picketing takes place
reasonably close to the situs of the primary dispute, and the picketing
clearly discloses that the dispute is with the primary employer. 92
NLRB at 549.
3. The General Counsel’s motion to strike portions of
the Respondent’s answer, for summary default judgment,
and for the Issuance of Board decision and order
As stated in footnote 2 above, this case originally in-
cluded allegations in Cases 22–CC–083895 and 22–CE–
084893 that were settled pursuant to an informal settle-
ment agreement. The General Counsel argues that by
committing the violations that we have found here in
Case 22–CC–099341, the Union has breached the terms
of the settlement agreement in Cases 22–CC–083895 and
22–CE–084893 and that, pursuant to the “Performance”
provision of the settlement agreement, the Board should
enter a default judgment in the previously settled cases.7
However, we are unable to discern from the General
Counsel’s motion and supporting memorandum the spe-
cific terms of the settlement agreement the General
Counsel contends that the Union has breached as a result
of the violations it committed in the instant case, nor is
such breach readily self-evident. We therefore deny the
General Counsel’s motion. However, we do so without
prejudice to the General Counsel renewing the motion, if
he so chooses, within 14 days from the date of this Deci-
sion and Order, and providing an explanation of the rela-
tionship between the violations in the instant case, the
terms of the settlement agreement, and the “Perfor-
mance” provision of the settlement agreement. In the
event the General Counsel files a renewed motion, the
Union shall be granted 14 days from the date of such
filing to respond, if it so chooses.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. County Concrete Corporation is a person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(1), (6), and (7) of the Act and
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Local 560, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening to enforce paragraph 1(q) of its col-
lective-bargaining agreement with signatory employers,

7 Specifically, in his motion, the General Counsel asks the Board to
(i) find that the Union has waived its right to file an answer to pars. 7(b)
through 13 of the complaint (the allegations relating to the previously
settled cases) and that the Union has admitted all allegations contained
therein; (ii) strike pars. 7(b) through 13 of the Union’s answer as they
relate to Cases 22–CC–083895 and 22–CE–084893; (iii) issue a deci-
sion and order finding the allegations in the complaint relating to Cases
22–CC–083895 and 22–CE–084893 to be true, and make findings of
fact and conclusions of law consistent with those allegations adverse to
the Union on all issues raised by the pleadings; and (iv) provide a rem-
edy for the violations found consistent with the terms of the settlement
agreement and the notice to employees attached to the settlement
agreement.
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) of the
Act.
4. By threatening employers who are signatory to col-
lective-bargaining agreements with picketing, where an
object thereof was to force or require such employers to
cease doing business with County Concrete, the Re-
spondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Local 560, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening any employer who is signatory to a
collective-bargaining agreement with Local 560 with
picketing, where an object thereof is to force or require
such employer to cease doing business with County Con-
crete Corporation.
(b) Threatening to enforce, through grievance and ar-
bitration procedures, paragraph 1(q) of the collective-
bargaining agreement with signatory employers, where
an object thereof is to force or require any signatory em-
ployer to cease doing business with County Concrete
Corporation.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Sign and mail a letter to all employers to whom the
2013 Winter Update was sent informing each such em-
ployer that the 2013 Winter Update has been found to
violate the Act and has been rescinded.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its New Jersey facility copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”8 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees and members are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of
paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent
customarily communicates with employees and members
by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, deliver
to the Regional Director for Region 22 signed copies of

8 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
the notice in sufficient number for posting by County
Concrete Corporation at its New Jersey facility, if it
wishes, in all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 22 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the General Counsel’s
motion to strike portions of Respondent’s answer, for
summary default judgment, and for the issuance of board
decision and order is denied without prejudice to the
General Counsel renewing his motion, as described here-
in.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 26, 2015
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Member
______________________________________
Harry I. Johnson, III, Member
(SEAL) 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
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
WE WILL NOT threaten any employer who is signatory
to a collective-bargaining agreement with us with picket-
ing, where an object thereof is to force or require that
employer to cease doing business with County Concrete
Corporation.
WE WILL NOT threaten to enforce, through grievance
and arbitration procedures, paragraph 1(q) of our collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with signatory employers,
where an object thereof is to force or require any signato-
ry employer to cease doing business with County Con-
crete Corporation.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 560 (COUNTY CONCRETE CORP.) 5
WE WILL sign and mail a letter to all employers to
whom the 2013 Winter Update was sent informing each
such employer that the 2013 Winter Update has been
found to violate the Act and has been rescinded.
WE WILL, within 14 days after service by the Region,
sign and return to the Regional Director for Region 22
sufficient copies of the notice for posting by County
Concrete Corporation at its facility in New Jersey, if it
wishes, in all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted.
LOCAL 560, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/22–CC–083895 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Re-
lations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
Michael P. Silverstein, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Paul Montalbano, Esq. (Cohen, Leder, Montalbano & Gross-
man), of Kenilworth, New Jersey, for the Respondent.
John Adams, Esq. (Susanin, Widman & Brennan, P.C.), of
Wayne, Pennsylvania, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARTHUR J. AMCHAN, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Newark, New Jersey, on May 29, 2013. County
Concrete Company filed the charge in docket 22–CC–099341
on February 28, 2013, and the General Counsel issued the
complaint on April 29, 2013.
Despite the caption, only docket 22–CC–099341 was litigat-
ed before me. The other two dockets involve cases that were
settled. The General Counsel alleges that by violating the Act
in 22–CC–099341, Respondent has breached the settlement of
the prior cases. If I find that the Act was violated as alleged in
22–CC–099341, the General Counsel has asked me to forward
the matter to the Board for the entry of summary judgment in
the other two cases. I hereby do so.
The essence of the instant case is that the General Counsel
alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B)
in sending a letter to signatory construction companies, with
whom it does not have a labor dispute, threatening, coercing
and restraining them from doing business with the Charging
Party, County Concrete Corporation.1
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel, Respondent, and Charging Party, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Charging Party, County Concrete Corporation supplies
ready-mix concrete to various employers in northern New Jer-
sey. County Concrete purchases and receives goods valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from points outside of New Jersey.
It is thus an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The Union, Team-
sters Local 560, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
County Concrete’s ready-mix drivers have been represented
by Teamsters Local 893 since 2009, but during this period there
has not been a collective-bargaining agreement between County
and Local 893. It pays its ready-mix drivers substantially less
than drivers covered by Local 560’s contracts. County is one
of about a half dozen suppliers of ready-mix concrete to the
major construction contractors in northern New Jersey.
Respondent Union embarked upon a campaign regarding
County Concrete’s wages sometime in 2010. County Concrete
filed a charge alleging that Respondent violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) in November 2010. This was settled in
March 2011 and was referred to the Board for summary judg-
ment proceedings by Administrative Law Judge Lauren Esposi-
to in her February 13, 2013 decision. That decision concerned
other charges filed against Respondent by County Concrete.
Judge Esposito’s decision dealt with conversations between
Local 560 agents and potential customers of County Concrete
on or about November 1, and December 30, 2011. With regard
to the events tried before Judge Esposito, I adopt her findings
and conclusions, which are currently pending before the Board.
On April 26, 2011, Anthony Valdner, president of Teamsters
Local 560, sent a letter to companies who are parties to collec-
tive-bargaining agreements between Local 560 and the Associ-
ated General Contractors of New Jersey, Building Contractors
Association of New Jersey and the Utility and Transportation
Contractors Association, which threatened to engage in “area
standards picketing” at jobsites when County Concrete is deliv-
ering concrete.2 Most or all of these employers do not employ
their own ready-mix drivers. Some have purchased concrete
from County Concrete in the past. County’s employees deliver
concrete to construction sites. They do not perform other work

1 The General Counsel alleges Respondent violated Sec.
8(b)(4)(ii)(A) by forcing neutral employers to enter into an agreement
not to do business with County Concrete and Sec. 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by
threatening to picket if these employers did business with County Con-
crete.
2 R. Exh. 7, docket 22–CC–01522.
6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at these sites.
On November 1, 2011, Valdner spoke with John Domingues,
the owner of Sharpe Concrete Corporation, a construction com-
pany customer of County Concrete. In her decision of February
13, 2013, Judge Esposito found that in this conversation, Re-
spondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by threatening to pick-
et Sharpe Concrete at the St. Peter’s College jobsite, with an
object of forcing or requiring Sharpe to cease doing business
with County Concrete.
On about December 30, 2011, Joseph DiLeo, an agent of the
Respondent Union, told Antonio Vieira, general superintendent
of Macedos Construction that if Macedos did not find a con-
crete supplier other than County Concrete on the Novartis park-
ing garage project, Respondent would picket the job. Judge
Esposito also found that Respondent, by DiLeo, violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by threatening to picket with an object of
forcing Macedos to cease doing business with County.
On or about February 28, 2013, Valdner sent out a similar
letter to his April 2011 letter, entitled, “Winter 2013 Update.”
This letter is the subject of the instant litigation. The Winter
Update stated in pertinent part:
Dear AGC, BCA, UTCA and Independent Construction Con-
tractors and Subcontractors:
Local 560, IBT continues its efforts to protect area standards
of wages and benefits paid to drivers in the redi-mix concrete
delivery industry.
Target: County Concrete Corporation
Target: Service Concrete Company; Joel Tanis & Sons
County Concrete Corporation continues its attempts to seri-
ously undermine redi-mix delivery area standards. Though
County Concrete has a collective bargaining relationship with
Local 863, I.B.T., the parties have been without a contract for
over two years due to County Concrete’s offer of substandard
wages and benefits. It is not expected any time soon that they
will reach agreement on economic terms for a contract. Strike
and picketing should be expected. While County Concrete
and Local 863 may be expected to continue to seek to resolve
their differences, Local 560 will not stand actionless as Coun-
ty Concrete continues to operate at substandard wages and
economic benefits, with affect to destroy area standard wages
and economic benefits.
First, Local 560 wishes to remind all AGC Contractors who
are signatory to Local 560 construction contracts that the con-
tract does place certain expectations upon the contractor in re-
gard to area standards. During the term of the Local 560 col-
lective bargaining agreement, Local 560’s enforcement of the
provision will be enforced through the grievance and arbitra-
tion procedure, though this does not necessarily mean that
Local 560 will not be engaging in area standards picketing in
the presence of County Concrete, Service Concrete and Joel
Tanis and Sons where not prohibited.
For Companies not signatory to the Local 560—AGC con-
tract, and other Local 560 contracts that do not have a no-
strike provision prohibiting area standards picketing, Local
560 intends to aggressively engage in area standards picket-
ing.
In the past, Local 560 would contact the contractor who had
in advisedly purchased from County Concrete, or other sub-
standard concrete supplier, and provide the respectful courte-
sy of advance notice of picketing so that the contractor be
made aware and at its option make arrangements. Due to re-
cent claims that such courtesy notices were viewed as
“threats,” Local 560 will no longer provide advanced notice
of picketing. If you are going to utilize either County Con-
crete or Service Concrete (Joel Tanis), be well aware that Lo-
cal 560 will be showing up at your project with picketing and
will no longer provide you with advanced notice.
So that there can be no claim of confusion or assertion of
misunderstanding of any future conversations you may have
with Local 560 Business Agents, Local 560 advises that all
“threats to picket” are made with, and actual picketing will be
conducted, in accordance with Moore Dry Dock Standards for
Picketing at a Secondary Site; as indicated below:
1. Picketing will clearly disclose that the dispute is
with County Concrete for its failure to pay Area
Standards;
2. Picketing will be conducted at times County Con-
crete is “engaged in its normal business” at the Sec-
ondary Site;
3. Picketing will be conducted at times County Con-
crete is “located” or “present” on the Secondary em-
ployer’s site.
4. Picketing will be limited to places reasonably close
to the sites of the dispute, with due regard to reserve
gates and property access.
Local 560’s energies and vigorous activities will be persistent
and will continue until County Concrete Corp., Service Con-
crete and Joes Tanis & Sons, commence to pay their redi-mix
drivers Area Standards when making deliveries in Local 560
geographic territory.
Local 560 does not seek to enmesh your company in its dis-
pute with County Concrete, Service and Joel Tanis & Sons.
Whichever redi-mix company you decide to utilize, we rec-
ommend prudence be taken to determine what rates of pay
and benefits the Company pays its drivers.
If you have any questions in regard to the meaning of the
Moore Dry Dock Standards, you should contact the National
Labor Relations Board or our own counsel. Because of pre-
vious claims of improper statements made by Local 560
Business Representatives, Local 560 Business Representa-
tives are under instruction that they shall not add to, supple-
ment, or explain this letter to any contractor, and you are spe-
cifically advised that any such statements are not operative or
authorized such that they may not be claimed to be made
against Local 560’s interests.
The Winter 2013 Update differs from the April 2011 letter is
several respects. The paragraph stating that advance notice of
picketing will no longer be provided was not in the April 2011
letter. Similarly, the language promising enforcement of areas
standards through the grievance and arbitration procedure of
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 560 (COUNTY CONCRETE CORP.) 7
the collective-bargaining agreement was not in the April 2011
letter. That contract expired by its terms on April 30, 2013 (GC
Exh. 5), but may have been extended (Tr. 35).
The May 1, 2012—April 30, 2013 collective-bargaining
agreement between Local 560 and the Associated General Con-
tractors of New Jersey contained the following clause, para-
graph 1(q):
The employer agrees that it shall accept deliveries of concrete
and aggregate only from drivers who are receiving wages,
fringe benefits and the economic dollar values of working
conditions that are prevailing in the area, as set by the appli-
cable Teamsters contract for the concrete, aggregate or other
type of delivery then prevailing in the County in which the
site is located.
Analysis
SECTION 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)
The General legal principles applicable to Respondent’s let-
ter, insofar as it advises neutral employers of the Union’s intent
to picket, were summarized by Judge Esposito in her February
13, 2013 decision in a case involving the same parties, docket
22–CC–01522 et. al. Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) prohibits labor or-
ganizations and their representatives from threatening, coerc-
ing, or restraining any person engaged in commerce, “where an
object thereof is forcing or requiring any person to cease doing
business with any other person.” It is well settled that an un-
lawful secondary objective need not be the sole motivation for
the union’s conduct so long as an unlawful object exists. Pro-
hibited conduct in furtherance of that objective violates Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B). In addition, the Board has held that an “unquali-
fied threat to picket a neutral employer’s jobsite where the pri-
mary employer is also working violates Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)
absent assurances that picketing will be conducted in accord-
ance with the standards articulated in Sailor’s Union of the
Pacific (Moore Dry Dock), 92 NLRB 547 (1950).3
However, compliance with the Moore Dry Dock standards
does not preclude a finding of unlawful picketing where there is
independent evidence of a secondary objective. Teamsters
Local 126 (Ready Mix Concrete, Inc.), 200 NLRB 253 (1972);
Electrical Workers Local 441 (Rollins Communications, Inc.),
222 NLRB 99, 101 (1976).
The principal disagreement between the parties in applying
these principles to this case is whether, as Respondent con-
tends, the Winter Update letter is to be considered in isolation,
or in conjunction with the history of the parties over the last 3
years. I conclude this makes no difference to the outcome of
this case.
I conclude that the Winter Update, on its face, is motivated
by the Union’s intention to discourage signatory contractors
from doing business with County Concrete. Area standards
picketing is presumptively valid when a union complies with
the Moore Dry Dock standards. However, while picketing may
evoke a response from County’s employees, and others, as well
as neutral employers, the Winter Update letter, which was sent

3 The Moore Dry Dock standards are essentially those set forth in the
numbered paragraphs of the Respondent’s Winter Update letter.
only to County’s potential customers, could have only one ob-
jective. That objective is to discourage neutral employers from
ordering concrete from County. Moreover, there is no way to
segregate the statements in the Winter Update from the Union’s
continuing efforts over the last 3 years to discourage union
contractors from doing business with County Concrete. Thus, I
conclude the letter violates Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and 8(e)
At page 5 of its posttrial brief, Respondent appears to con-
cede that the Winter 2013 Update letter violates Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(A) in threatening to enforce paragraph 1(q) of the
2012–2013 contract through the grievance and arbitration pro-
cedures of that contract and that paragraph 1(q) violates Section
8(e). Its argument appears to be that changes to its contracts
since May 1, 2013, have rendered this issue moot.
Respondent has not established on this record either that the
issue was moot when the Winter Update 2013 was sent to sig-
natory contractors, or that it has become moot by virtue of the
execution of a successor collective-bargaining agreement, Tr.
34–35. Therefore, I find that the Winter Update violates Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and 8(e), as alleged. There does not seem to
be any question that the paragraph 1(q) is a blatant violation of
Section 8(e) and that the construction industry provi-
so/exception in Section 8(e) does not apply to provisions aimed
at depriving County, a ready-mix concrete supplier, of custom-
ers, Teamsters Local 251 (Material Sand & Stone), 356 NLRB
No. 135 (2011).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By sending its “Winter Update” letter to employers who are
signatory to collective-bargaining agreements with it, Respond-
ent, Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters has
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of the Act. Para-
graph 1(q) of the Respondent’s 2012–2013 collective-
bargaining agreement violates Section 8(e) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended4
ORDER
The Respondent, Local 560, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employers who are signatory to collective-
bargaining agreements with it with picketing and/or the filing

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.
8 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of grievances, where the object is to force such employers from
ceasing to do business with County Concrete Corporation.
(b) In any manner coercing employers in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) and Section 8(e).
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Sign and mail a letter to all employers to whom the 2013
Winter Update was sent informing each such employer that the
2013 Winter Update has been found to violate the Act and that
it has been rescinded.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its of-
fice copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 22, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees and members are cus-
tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notic-
es, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by
email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates
with its signatory employers by such means. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.

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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. July 26, 2013
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
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
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain any employer,
where an object thereof is to force that employer to cease doing
business with County Concrete Corporation.
LOCAL 560, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS