Laborers Local 79 (JMH Development)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 2009

354 N.L.R.B. 158 (N.L.R.B. 2009)

354 NLRB No. 14
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 79, Laborers International Union of North
America, AFL–CIO and JMH Development,
LLC
Local 79, Laborers International Union of North
America, AFL–CIO and Marathon Asset Man-
agement, LLC. Cases 29–CC–1564 and 29–CC–
1566
April 30, 2009
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBER SCHAUMBER
On October 16, 2008, Administrative Law Judge
Raymond P. Green issued the attached decision. The
Respondent, the General Counsel, and Charging Party
Marathon Asset Management, LLC (Marathon) each
filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Respondent
and Charging Party JMH Development, LLC (JMH) each
filed an answering brief, and the Respondent and Charg-
ing Party Marathon each filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board1 has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order as modified.3

1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act.
2 The Respondent, the General Counsel, and Charging Party Mara-
thon have excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. 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.
There are no exceptions to the judge’s dismissal of the allegation
that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act by engaging
in signal picketing at the JMH jobsite.
The General Counsel has excepted to the judge’s failure to find that
the Respondent violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by blocking Mara-
thon CEO Bruce Richards’ family from entering a restaurant. We agree
with the judge for the reasons given in his decision. Among those
reasons, the judge cited the fact that the alleged conduct, even if it
occurred, was not directed at any “employee.” Although the judge did
not cite any authority for that point, it is well supported by Board
precedent holding that Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) protects the rights of statutory
“employees” only. See Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 (Losli Interna-
The judge found that the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act by threatening to picket the
JMH jobsite. We agree for the following reasons. The
Respondent made unqualified threats to picket neutral
employer JMH’s jobsite, where primary employer North-
east Interiors was working, without providing assurances
that such picketing would be conducted lawfully in ac-
cordance with Moore Dry Dock, 92 NLRB 547 (1950).
The judge correctly applied Board precedent holding that
such unqualified threats to picket at a common situs are
unlawful. See, e.g., Electrical Workers Local 98 (MCF
Services), 342 NLRB 740, 749 (2004), enfd. mem. 251
Fed. Appx. 101 (3d Cir. 2007).
We recognize, as did the judge, that two Federal Cir-
cuits have rejected that precedent, concluding that a vio-
lation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) cannot be established
merely by a union’s failure to provide advance assur-
ances that threatened picketing would be conducted law-
fully. See Sheet Metal Workers Local 15 v. NLRB, 491
F.3d 429 (D.C. Cir. 2007); United Assn of Journeymen,
Local 32 v. NLRB, 912 F.2d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 1990).
Even without relying on the unqualified nature of the
Respondent’s threats, however, we would find a viola-
tion in this case based on direct evidence of the Respon-
dent’s unlawful secondary objective.
The judge found that, on at least two occasions, union
agents told JMH that the Respondent would picket
“unless” demolition work at the jobsite was performed
by a union contractor instead of Northeast Interiors.
Those statements clearly demonstrated the Respondent’s
objective of forcing JMH to cease doing business with
Northeast Interiors. See Electrical Workers Local 369
(Garst-Receveur Construction Co.), 229 NLRB 68
(1977) (secondary objective shown by union’s statement
that “[i]f the job was run 100 percent union and then if
[primary employer] is off this job, then everything can be
cleared up”), enfd. 609 F.2d 266 (6th Cir. 1979). In view
of the direct evidence of the Respondent’s prohibited
secondary objective, we find that a violation has been
established independently of the unqualified nature of the
Respondent’s threats to picket. See, e.g., Service Em-

tional), 297 NLRB 1078 (1990); see also Service Employees Local 525
(General Maintenance Co.), 329 NLRB 638, 638 fn. 9 (1999), enfd.
mem. 52 Fed. Appx. 357 (9th Cir. 2002). There is also no evidence
that employees witnessed the alleged conduct. See Teamsters Local
115 (Oakwood Chair), 277 NLRB 694, 698 (1985) (it has long been
settled that restraint and coercion directed against supervisors and man-
agement personnel under circumstances where the conduct became or
was sure to become known to employees may violate Sec. 8(b)(1)(A)).
3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform to the
Board’s standard remedial language. We shall also substitute a new
notice.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
ployees Local 254 (Womens & Infants Hospital), 324
NLRB 743, 743 (1997).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Local 79, Laborers Interna-
tional Union of North America, AFL–CIO, Brooklyn,
New York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the recommended Order as
modified.
1. Substitute the following for the first sentence of the
recommended Order
“The Respondent, Local 79, Laborers International
Union of North America, AFL–CIO, Brooklyn, New
York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall”
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.
Dated, Washington, D.C. April 30, 2009
Wilma B. Liebman, Chairman
Peter C. Schaumber, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS AND 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 the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and obey by this notice.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain JMH Devel-
opment, LLC, where an object thereof is to force or re-
quire JMH Development, LLC to cease doing business
with Northeast Interiors or any other person.
LOCAL 79, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL–CIO
Nancy K. Reibstein, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Richard I. Milman, Esq., for JMH Development, LLC.
Charles H. Kaplan, Esq., for Marathon Asset Management
LLC.
Joseph J. Vitale, Esq., for the Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RAYMOND P. GREEN, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this
case in Brooklyn, New York, on June 24, 25, and July 1, 2008.
The charge in Case 29–CC–1564 and the charge in Case 29–
CC–1566 were respectively filed on March 25 and April 4,
2008. The consolidated complaint which was issued on May
29, 2008, alleges as follows:
1. That in connection with a construction site at 184 Kent
Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, JMH, a real estate developer,
has engaged Northeast Interiors as the demolition subcontrac-
tor.
2. That Marathon Asset Management, LLC has been en-
gaged in the business of investing and asset management.
3. That at all times material herein Local 79 has had a labor
dispute with Northeast Interiors and has not had any primary
dispute with either JMH or Marathon.
4. That on or about February 19 and March 18, 2008, the
Union threatened representatives of JMH that it would picket
and “shut down” JMH.
5. That on or about March 6, 2008, the Union blocked Bruce
Richards, president of Marathon and members of his family,
from entering into Cipriani’s Restaurant.
6. That in or about the week of March 17, 2008, the Union
by unidentified representatives, threatened to harm the Rich-
ards’ family.
7. That on or about March 4, 2008, the Union induced em-
ployees of Marathon to cease work.
Based on these alleged facts, the General Counsel contends
that the Union violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
Also, in her brief, the General Counsel contends that by the
conduct alleged to have occurred on March 6, in front of Cipri-
ani’s Restaurant, the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act. In the latter regard, I note that no charge was filed
under that section of the Act and the consolidated complaint
does not allege such a violation.
On the entire record,1 including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed, I
make the following
I. JURISDICTION
JMH Development, LLC is a real estate development com-
pany doing business in New York, Florida, and Nevada. On an
annual basis it derives gross income in excess of $500,000 and
had derives revenue from firms located outside the State of
New York in excess of $50,000. JMH therefore meets the
Board’s direct outflow standards for jurisdiction.
Marathon Asset Management LLC is a financial enterprise,
with its main office and place of business in New York City. It
operates a number of investment funds and does business
throughout the United States and in foreign countries. Most of
its customers are other institutions such as pension funds. An-
nually, it has gross revenue from fees and loans in excess of $1
million and derives revenues in excess of $50,000 for services

1 I am going to grant the respective motions to correct the record ex-
cept to the extent described below. The Union moved to correct the Tr.
at p. 109, LL. 15–17 and there was an objection to this. I requested the
reporting service to doublecheck the transcript and was notified, along
with everyone else, that the transcript as written was correct. Accord-
ingly, the Union’s motion to correct the transcript is denied in this
regard. The respective motions to correct the transcript and the follow
up correspondence including my correspondence to and from the re-
porting service should be considered as part of this record.
LABORERS LOCAL 79 (JMH DEVELOPMENT) 3
performed outside the State of New York. It therefore meets
the Board’s direct outflow standards for asserting jurisdiction.
Northeast Interiors is a New York corporation that has been
engaged in providing demolition services for the Kent Avenue
project. During the past year, it derived revenue in excess of
$50,000 from JMH, which as noted above is engaged in inter-
state commerce pursuant to the Board’s direct outflow stan-
dards. As such, Northeast Interiors is also engaged in interstate
commerce based on the Board’s indirect outflow standard for
asserting jurisdiction.
Based on the above, it is concluded that JMH, Marathon, and
Northeast are persons and employers engaged in interstate com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) and Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.
It is conceded and I find that Local 79, Laborers Interna-
tional Union of North America, AFL–CIO is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The building involved in this case is located at 184 Kent
Avenue, which is in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn and
is rapidly becoming one of the new hip neighborhoods in New
York City. It is a very large structure and was originally de-
signed in the early 20th century. For at least 70 years it was
used as a warehouse. The building, which abuts the East River
(and having a fabulous view of the New York skyline), was
purchased by JMH for conversion into apartments and retail
stores. One of Marathon’s real estate funds invested money in
this project.
Initially, JMH hired a general contractor who in turn hired
Breeze to do the demolition work. The employees of Breeze
were represented by the Union and there was a collective-
bargaining relationship with that company and the Respondent.
There were two phases of demolition; the first to clean out the
existing structure and the second to carve out a rectangular
space in the center of the building for the creation of a plaza
type of space.
In December 2007, JMH became dissatisfied with the work
done by Breeze and decided to terminate its contract with both
the general contractor and with Breeze. Subsequently, JMH set
up a subsidiary company to manage the construction and
Northeast was engaged to finish the demolition work. North-
east is a nonunion company.
In or about late January or early February 2008, Northeast
brought its own employees onto the jobsite. At or about the
same time, representatives of Local 79 became aware that
Breeze’s contract had been terminated and that a nonunion
demolition contractor had been engaged to do the work.
There is no dispute and the evidence clearly establishes that
the Union sought to have JMH cease doing business with
Northeast and to put pressure on Marathon so that JMH would
terminate its contract with Northeast and either rehire Breeze or
retain a contractor having a collective-bargaining agreement
with Local 79. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the Union
had a primary dispute with Northeast on account of its nonun-
ion standing and that Marathon and JMH were secondary em-
ployers within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.
a. Alleged Conduct vis a vis JMH
The evidence shows that on or about February 19, a union
representative (either John Modika, a business agent, or Jerry
Kraft, an organizer), had a conversation with representatives of
JMH and stated that unless the demolition work was done by a
union contractor, the Union would picket the jobsite.2 General
Counsel’s witnesses also testified that the union representative
said that he would “close you down” and this was not denied by
Kraft who specifically admitted that he said that the Union
would “picket.”
The evidence also shows that on at least one other occasion
in March 2008, Kraft admittedly told representatives of JMH
that the Union would engage in picketing unless it used a union
contractor. Additionally, it was asserted that he again stated
that he would “shut you down,” an assertion that was not de-
nied by Kraft.
The General Counsel alleges that these statements to JMH
constituted “threats, restrain or coercion” within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(ii) and as they were designed to force or require
JMH (a secondary person/employer), to cease doing business
with Northeast (the primary employer), the Union violated the
Act. 3
The Respondent argues that the statement to JMH that it
would engage in picketing cannot be construed as a “threat”
because the Union would legally be entitled to picket at a
common situs under the rationale of Sailors’ Union of the Pa-
cific (Moore Dry Dock), 92 NLRB 547 (1950). In that case the
Board established the following criteria for determining if pick-
eting at primary situs is primary or secondary:
(a) The picketing is strictly limited 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 en-
gaged in its normal business at the situs;
(c) The picketing is limited to places reasonably close to the
location of the situs; and
(d) The picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the
primary employer.
The Board’s position on this is that an unqualified threat to
picket a primary employer at a secondary’s common situs is a
violation of the Act because the Union has given no assurance
that it would comply with the restrictions set forth in Moore
Dry Dock.

2 Kraft’s title is “Market Development Representative.” He is what
used to be called an organizer. It is probable that he, and not Modika
was the person who spoke to JMH representatives on or about February
19, 2008.
3 In its brief, JMH contends that union representatives, on a couple
of occasions, parked outside the construction site and handed out leaf-
lets. It contends that the Union thereby engaged in picketing which
induced or encouraged individuals to cease working for JMH or other
persons in violation of Sec. 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. This is rejected.
Firstly, I note that the complaint does not make such an allegation and a
Charging Party does not have any authority to amend the complaint.
GPS Terminal Services, 333 NLRB 968, 969–970 (2002), and Kauma-
graph Corp., 313 NLRB 624 (1993). Secondly, the theory that this
conduct constituted “signal” picketing is not, in my opinion, supported
by the evidence.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4
The Respondent cites NLRB v. Ironworkers Local 433, 850
F.3d 551 (9th Cir. 1988); United Assn. of Journeymen Local 32
v. NLRB, 912 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 1990), and Sheet Metal
Workers’ Local 15 v. NLRB, 491 F.3d 429 (D.C. Cir. 2007), for
the proposition that at least two reviewing Circuit Courts have
rejected the Board’s view on this point.
As I am bound to follow the Board in its interpretation of the
law, I conclude that in this respect the Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
The Respondent also contends that the alleged threat made to
JMH to “shut you down,” cannot be construed as a threat under
subsection (ii) of 8(b)(4). It asserts that this is no more than a
statement expressing the “hope” of what would be the conse-
quence of any legal picketing activity that occurred and is
therefore not a description of any particular kind of action it-
self. There is no evidence to suggest that either JMH or any
other contractor at the common site employed people who were
represented by the Respondent and who therefore would likely
have refused to work or honor a lawful picket line if one had
been put up by Local 79. There is, I must say, something to be
said for the Union’s argument.
Nevertheless, the Board has on several occasions, concluded
that a statement made to a secondary employer that a union
would “shut it down” is to be construed as a threat for purposes
of the secondary boycott provisions of the Act. See Operating
Engineers Local 3 (Westar Marine Services), 340 NLRB 1053,
1053 fn. 1 (2003), and Teamsters Local 456 (Peckham Materi-
als), 307 NLRB 612, 612 fn. 2 and 619 (1992).
Accordingly, I shall conclude that in this respect the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
b. Alleged Conduct vis a vis Marathon
In connection with this construction project, the Union de-
cided to engage in a campaign to “shame” Bruce Richards, the
CEO of Marathon, in an effort to persuade him to put pressure
on JMH to use a union contractor. Basically, this campaign
consisted of passing out leaflets to the public at his Manhattan
office, at his residence on Central Park West, at a meeting he
attended in California with potential investors, and at a charity
event honoring him and his wife that took place on March 6, at
Cipriani’s restaurant on 42nd street.
The Union, commencing in early March 2008, has engaged
in leafleting at both Bruce Richard’s office and at his residence.
Initially, it also used an inflatable rat that was placed outside
his building but that was removed apparently because the build-
ing owners, who utilized union employees, complained to the
appropriate official in Local 79. In any event, Jerry Kraft,
sometimes assisted by others, has handed out leaflets at these
locations for some time, usually in the morning outside his
residence and in the afternoon outside his office. The original
leaflet stated inter alia:
SHAME
ON BRUCE RICHARDS
CEO of MARATHON MANAGEMENT for allowing
Workers to be exploited at 184 Kent Avenue.
Allowing contractors to pay workers in a fashion which per-
mits them to bypass the City, State and Federal tax structure is
not only against the law, it costs taxpayers millions of dollars
in lost tax revenue.
Untrained and unskilled workers will always lead to an unsafe
workplace, shoddy workmanship and a lower quality finished
product.
While New York City construction workers rebuild our city,
help show your support for their desire to work in a safe envi-
ronment receive a living wage, and be treated with the dignity
and respect that they deserve.
Does BRUCE RICHARDS think it’s worthwhile to exploit
workers just so he can save a little money?
Call BRUCE RICHARDS at 212 –381–4400 and tell him that
all workers deserve a living wage.
This leaflet is directed at the public and is not an inducement
for anyone to stop working or make deliveries. 4
The General Counsel points to an incident that occurred on
March 6, 2008, in front of Cipriani’s restaurant located on East
42nd Street. This was a charity event where Bruce Richards and
his wife, Avis, were being honored for charitable work that
they had done. Avis Richards testified that she, along with her
mother and son, arrived at the restaurant at about 6 p.m. where
she saw that an inflatable rat had been posted on the street curb
adjacent to the restaurant’s entrance. (The sidewalk is particu-
larly wide for a New York City street and the staircase leading
up to the entrance is at least 20-feet wide at the street level.)
Mrs. Richards testified that as she and her family exited the
vehicle, a group of union representatives approached, stood in
front of them, and “blocked” their way into the restaurant. In
this regard, she testified that the union people attempted to hand
flyers to her and that she refused to accept them. Mrs. Richards
also testified that the Union’s people shouted obscenities di-
rected at her husband until some security people escorted her
and her family into the restaurant. By my reckoning, this entire
incident took no more than a minute or two.
The General Counsel’s theory is that the action described by
Avis Richards constitutes a “threat, restraint or coercion” vis a
vis Marathon. As noted above, the General Counsel in her brief
also contends that the transaction on March 6, constitutes a
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A), notwithstanding the fact that no
such allegation was ever made in the unfair labor practice
charges or in the consolidated complaint. Nor was the alleged
conduct directed toward any employee.
Based on the testimony of those who participated in this
event, including Brian Grodin, it is my opinion, that union
agents merely approached Avis Richards and attempted to hand
her one of the leaflets that have been described above. At most,
the evidence establishes a degree of rudeness on the part of
union agents. On the other hand, the evidence does not, in my
opinion, show that union agents attempted to physically block
the Richards family from moving from the vehicle to the en-
trance of the restaurant. I therefore do not conclude that any
union agents attempted to block her way or that they otherwise
physically attempted to impede her or her family from going to
the charity event.

4 This font is chosen here because it is similar to the font used in the
leaflet.
LABORERS LOCAL 79 (JMH DEVELOPMENT) 5
There was also testimony by Melissa Davis who is employed
by Marathon regarding an incident that occurred during the
week of March 17. She testified that as she left the building,
she observed union representatives Jerry Kraft and Anthony
Reid distributing flyers to the public. This was not the first
time that she had observed them doing this and the flyers in
question, which also were distributed outside of Richards’
apartment, said “Shame on Bruce Richards.” (I assume these
are the same flyers as the one described above). In any event,
Davis testified that she engaged in conversation with one of the
union agents who said: “Tell him that we’re not going any-
where any time soon. We were at his home earlier this morning
at 15 Central Park West. We know his wife, we know his chil-
dren, and we know where his children go to school. We’re
going to be coming to his children’s school. We’re going to
California in a few weeks. We’re going to be here. We don’t
like having to do this, but Bruce left us with no choice.”
The General Counsel asserts that these statements constitute
a threat of physical harm to the Richards family. In the context
of this case, I do not agree.
From early March 2008, the Union has engaged in a cam-
paign of public leafleting and this campaign has been designed
to cause “shame” to Bruce Richards. In this regard, the Union
has handed out leaflets outside his office, outside his home, and
at a charity event. Apart from this one conversation, there has
never been even a hint that personal physical action was ever
contemplated. Clearly, the “shame” campaign was an attempt
to embarrass Richards in any way and in any forum available to
the Union. Therefore in the context of the preceding events, I
construe these remarks as meaning only that as the Union had
engaged in leafleting at various locations in the past, it might
engage in leafleting at his children’s school. And whatever one
might say about the appropriateness of such a course of action,
I cannot conclude that the Union threatened the Richards family
with physical violence.
The General Counsel alleges that the Union violated Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B) by inducing or encouraging an individual (Greg
Florio), employed by Marathon to engage in a strike or a re-
fusal 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.
In this regard, the General Counsel presented the testimony of
Greg Florio, who is employed as the de facto General Counsel
for Marathon.
Florio testified that on or about March 4, he had a conversa-
tion with a union representative outside the office building and
that this person said to him: “[T]his asshole, Bruce Richards
can afford a fancy apartment, but he doesn’t want to pay work-
ers in Brooklyn.” Florio states that when he told this person
that Richards was the wrong guy and had nothing to do with
those decisions, the agent responded: “Oh, you know this ass-
hole? How can you work for such an asshole? You should be
ashamed of yourself.” Florio states that this person went on to
say that he should tell Richards to “do the right thing” and that
the Union was not going to go away until he did.
In my opinion, there is nothing in this conversation that
could reasonably be construed as an attempt to actually induce
or encourage Florio, Marathon’s counsel, to engage in a work
stoppage or a refusal to work for Marathon. A statement indi-
cating opprobrium about working for “such an asshole” cannot,
in my opinion be taken by any reasonable person, as a real re-
quest that Florio stop working for his employer. In effect the
“question” asked by the union representative is in the nature of
a rhetorical question and should not be understood as a real
request that Florio cease working for Marathon.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By threatening, coercing, or restraining JMH Develop-
ment, LLC, with an object of forcing it to cease doing business
with Northeast Interiors, the Respondent, Local 79, Laborers
International Union of North America, AFL–CIO, has violated
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
2. The acts by of the Respondent have affected commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not violated the Act in any other
manner alleged in the consolidated complaint.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair la-
bor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act, I
shall recommend that it take certain affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the purposes of the act.
ORDER
The Respondent, Local 79, Laborers International Union of
North America, AFL–CIO, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening, coercing, or restraining JMH Development
LLC, where an object thereof is to force or require JMH Devel-
opment LLC to cease doing business with Northeast Interiors or
any other person.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) 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 29, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to members
are customarily posted. Also, if the Union publishes a newslet-
ter for its members, this notice should be published therein.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Sign and mail a copy of the notice to JMH Development
LLC and to Northeast Interiors.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official

5 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the
National 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.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., October 16, 2008.

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS AND 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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and obey by this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain JMH Development
LLC, where an object thereof is to force or require JMH Devel-
opment LLC to cease doing business with Northeast Interiors or
any other person.
LOCAL 79, LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA, AFL–CIO