Teamster Local 677 (J H Hogan)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 17, 1990

299 N.L.R.B. 499 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 677 (J H HOGAN) 499
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local
677, AFL-CIO and J. H. Hogan, Inc. Case 34-
CC-87
August 17, 1990
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, AND
OVIATT
On January 30, 1990, Administrative Law Judge
Joel P Biblowitz issued the attached decision The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supportmg brief,
and the General Counsel filed an answering brief
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions, as modified, and to adopt the recom-
mended Order
The judge found that the Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(4)(1) and (n)(B) of the Act when it en-
gaged in area standards picketing against McCleary
Brothers, Inc , at the parking garage construction
site where McCleary delivered ready-mix concrete
to Chargmg Party concrete subcontractor J H
Hogan, Inc The judge's analysis focused on the
Respondent's defense of its picketing at a gate re-
served for neutral employers rather than at the
gate reserved for the exclusive use of the primary
employer, McCleary We agree with the judge, for
the reasons set forth fully in his decision, that the
Respondent has failed to prove its contentions that
the neutral reserved gate was tainted by a single in-
cident in which a McCleary truck used this gate or
that the location of the primary reserved gate un-
reasonably deprived the Respondent of its right to
commumcate with the public because occupants of
passing vehicles were traveling too fast to read the
picket signs We find it unnecessary to pass, how-
ever, on the Respondent's defense that safety haz-
ards attendant to picketing at the primary gate lo-
cation unreasonably impaired the effectiveness of
that picketing Accordingly, in finding a violation
here, we do not rely on the Respondent's failure to
restrict its picketing to the reserved primary gate
It is undisputed that the Respondent picketed the
jobsite daily from November 30, 1989, until at least
the December 27, 1989 heanng in this case At no
time during this period was the primary employer,
McCleary, present at the jobsite Whether the Re-
spondent was required to restrict its picketing to
the reserved pnmary gate, it clearly failed to meet
the Moore Dry Dock l requirement that it limit its
picketing to times when the situs of the dispute was
at the secondary employer premises The Respond-
ent has offered no persuasive evidence to rebut the
presumption of an illegal secondary objective aris-
ing from this failure We therefore affirm the
judge's conclusion that the Respondent's picketing
violated Section 8(b)(4)(1) and (u)(B)
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Local 677, AFL-
CIO, Waterbury, Connecticut, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth
m the Order
1 Sailors Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock), 92 NLRB 547, 549
(1950)
Jaye Bailey, Esq , for the General Counsel
Burton S Rosenberg Esq , for the Respondent
Michael N La Velle, Esq (Pullman, Conley, Bradley et
Reeves), for the Charging Party
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOEL P BisLowrrz, Administrative Law Judge This
case was heard by me on December 27, 1989, 1 in Hart-
ford, Connecticut The complaint and notice of hearing
issued on December 11 and was based on an unfair labor
practice charge filed on December 1 by J H Hogan,
Inc (Hogan) The complaint alleges that Turner Con-
struction Company (Turner) has been engaged in the
construction of a concrete parking garage located on
Union Street and South Elm Street m Waterbury, Con-
necticut (the site) In connection with this construction,
Turner subcontracted certain work to other companies,
including Hogan to perform the cement construction
work at the site In furtherance of the subcontract from
Turner, Hogan contracted with McCleary Bros, Inc
(McCleary) to furnish it with cement supplies at the site
The complaint further alleges that International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local 677, AFL-CIO (Respondent)
has been engaged m a labor dispute with McCleary, but
has had no labor dispute with Turner, Hogan, or any of
the other contractors at the site Respondent admits all
of the above, except that it had a labor dispute with
McCleary The complaint alleges further that on about
November 24, separate gates were established at the fa-
cility, one reserved for McCleary and one for all other
contractors, but that since November 30, Respondent has
1 Unless indicated otherwise, all dates referred to relate to 1989
299 NLRB No 69
500 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
picketed the gate reserved for the "neutral" contractors,
in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
On the entire record, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent admits, and I find, that Hogan, a Con-
necticut corporation with its principal office located in
New Haven, Connecticut, is engaged in business as a
construction contractor. During the 12-month period
ending November 30, Hogan purchased and received at
locations within the State of Connecticut goods and ma-
terials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
outside the State of Connecticut, and is therefore an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Respondent admits and
I also find that Turner and McCleary are each employers
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE FACTS
The facts herein are based upon the credible and un-
contradicted testimony of Augustine Ruggiero, construc-
tion superintendent for Hogan at the site, John Czertak,
project manager for Hogan, and Louis Parisi, business
agent for Respondent. Hogan is the prime concrete sub-
contractor at the site, performing all the concrete work.
Hogan began at the site in late October or early Novem-
ber; its work crew at the site ranged from an average of
four carpenters and two laborers to a theoretical peak of
eight carpenters and four laborers. The other subcontrac-
tors also had employees on the site beginning in early to
mid-November. Hogan purchased all its concrete for the
site from McCleary, which delivers the concrete to the
site in ready-mix concrete trucks. Upon completing the
delivery of the concrete to the site, the McCleary truck
leaves the site. Admittedly, Respondent has no dispute
with either Turner, Hogan, or any other subcontractor
on the site. In about 1987, Respondent attempted to or-
ganize McCleary's employees, but was unsuccessful in
this pursuit. Prior to November, Parisi determined
through conversations with McCleary employees that
McCleary was not paying its employees an amount equal
to Respondent's "package," as contained in collective-
bargaining agreements with numerous employers. On this
basis, Respondent commenced picketing the site.
The site is triangular shaped, bordered on the North
by Union Street, on the West by South Elm Street, and
on the South (separated by a grassy area) by Interstate
84. Perpendicular to and ending at Union Street, 100 feet
from its most easterly point, is Franklin Street. The
length of each portion surrounding the site is as follows:
Union Street-513 feet; South Elm Street-209 feet; Inter-
state 84-559 feet. In about the first week of November,
the entire site had been enclosed by a chain link fence.
There are three trailers at the site: Hogan has two trail-
ers near the most easterly portion of the site and Union
Street, and Turner has a trailer at the southwestern por-
tion of the site, where Interstate 84 crosses South Elm
Street. There were two vehicular entrances established
on the site when the chain link fence was erected, each
about 20 feet wide: an entrance on Union Street (gate A)
about 100 feet west of the most easterly point of the site,
and an entrance on South Elm Street (gate B), approxi-
mately 120 feet south of the intersection of Union Street
and South Elm Street. There is 3 feet between the fence
and the street.
Respondent's pickets first appeared at the site on No-
vember 22; on that morning, about three of Respondent's
pickets appeared at each of the two gates to the site car-
rying signs saying the following: "TO THE PUBLIC.
CONCRETE HERE BEING DELIVERED UNDER
SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS. DO NOT USE
•McCLEARY BROS. CONCRETE FOR YOUR
WORK. THERE IS NO STRIKE HERE. TEAM-
STERS LOCAL 677." After speaking to Turner's con-
struction superintendent, Ruggieio obtained a 4-foot by
4-foot sheet of plywood and spray painted the words:
"McCleary Only Gate" on the plywood and posted it at
the Union Street gate about 9 a.m.; no sign was posted at
the South Elm Street entrance at that time. At that time,
the picketing ceased. About noon on that day, a
McCleary truck entered the site through gate A, and
exited through gate B about 25 minutes later. Later that
day, Czertak placed an order for signs to be posted at
the site. The next workday was Friday, November 24;
on that day Czertak brought the signs to the site at 7
a.m., at which time they were posted. The sign posted
on Union Street, gate A stated: "THIS GATE RE-
SERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF
McCLEARY BROS. INC. ONLY." The sign posted on
South Elm Street, Gate B stated: "THIS GATE RE-
SERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE
FOLLOWING: CONTRACTOR Turner Construction.
SUB-CONTRACTORS: J. H. Hogan, Inc. Manafort
Bros., Shepard Steel. THEIR SUB-CONTRACTORS,
THEIR EMPLOYEES AND THEIR SUPPLIERS
ONLY." About noon that day, Hogan sent the following
telegram to Respondent, with a copy to McCleary:
EFFECTIVE AT THE STARTING TIME ON NOVEM-
BER 24, 1989, A DUAL GATE ENTRANCE SYSTEM HAS
BEEN ESTABLISHED AT OUR PROJECT AT ST. MARY'S
HOSPITAL PARKING GARAGE WATERBURY, CT.
GATE "A" LOCATED ON UNION STREET OPPOSITE
FRANKLIN STREET IS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF
THE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS AND MATERIAL SUPPLIERS
OF MCCLEARY BROTHERS INC. GATE "B" LOCATED
ON SOUTH ELM STREET OPPOSITE SACRED HEART
HIGH SCHOOL IS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE
AGENTS, EMPLOYEES AND OTHER MATERIAL SUPPLI-
ERS OF J. H. HOGAN, INC. ONLY. ANY PICKET ACTIV-
ITY AGAINST MCCLEARY BROTHERS MUST BE CON-
FINED TO GATE "A." FAILURE ON YOUR PART TO
LIMIT YOUR PICKETING TO THAT ENTRANCE WILL
CAUSE J. H. HOGAN TO FILE NLRB CHARGES AND/OR
SUE FOR DAMAGES.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 677 (J H HOGANf)

501
There were no McCleary deliveries to the site and no
picketing, as well, on either Friday, November 24 or
Monday, November 27 On both of those days, however,
Ruggiero saw Respondent's representatives sitting in
their cars parked on Franklin Street in the vicinity of
gate A On Tuesday, November 28, one McCleary truck
arrived about 8 a m and six McCleary trucks arrived at
the site between 12 15 and 3 p m Each of these trucks
entered and exited the site through the Union Street gate
A Whenever a McCleary truck arrived at the site, Re-
spondent's pickets got out of their cars and picketed gate
A with the picket signs referred to, supra When the
pickets arrived, Hogan and Manafort's employees
stopped working and left the site On Wednesday, No-
vember 29, there were no McCleary deliveries and no
picketing at the site, Hogan's employees worked that
day
On Thursday, November 30, there was no picketmg
the early morning There were no McCleary deliveries
that day and no representative of McCleary was on the
site that day About 10 30 a in, 6 to 10 of Respondent's
representatives, including Pansi, began picketing the
South Elm Street—gate B at the site Since that day, Re-
spondent's pickets have picketed the South Elm Street—
gate B on a daily basis with between two and six pickets,
on only one occasion (December 7) did Respondent's
Representatives picket Union Street—gate B and then
only for about 15 minutes McCleary has had no deliv-
eries and no representative at the site since November
28 Beginning on November 30, the employees of Hogan
and the other subcontractors have failed to work at the
site
One important aspect of Respondent's defenses is the
location of gate A—the Union Street gate reserved for
McCleary Respondent contends that the location of the
gate, and the resulting speed of the vehicles passing it,
make it both unsafe for its pickets and ineffective for the
transmission of its message Union Street is a continu-
ation of the exit ramps from westbound Interstate 81 and
a state highway Both of these exit ramps merge into a
one-way two-lane road that becomes Union Street about
the most easterly portion of the site The distance from
the commencement of the exit ramp on Interstate 84 to
gate A is about one-third of a mile Approximately half-
way between the commencement of the ramp and gate A
is a road sign stating that the speed limit is 30 miles per
hour Directly across from gate A is Franklin Street, a
two-way street ending at and crossing Union Street,
there is a yield sign for drivers on Franklin Street pre-
paring to enter Union Street About 400 feet past gate A
(still two lanes going one-way—westbound) is a traffic
light at the intersection of Union and South Elm Streets
My observation of the videotape submitted by Respond-
ent establishes that most of the vehicles approaching gate
A appeared to be traveling between 30 to 35 miles per
hour, some slowed down considerably at Franklin Street
(directly across front gate A) in order to turn right onto
Franklin Street
Iv ANALYSIS
Section 8(b)(4)(1) and (u)(B) was designed to preserve
"the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to
bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes"
while, at the same time, shielding "unoffendmg employ-
ers and others from pressure in controversies not their
own" NLRB v Denver Building Trades Council, 341 U S
675, 692 (1951) Drawing the line between what is pro-
scribed picketing is especially difficult at a common site
where the primary employer's employees work alongside
the employees of the secondary (mnocent) employers To
bring this issue more clearly into focus, employers often
set up separate gates at such a common situs, one gate
for the offending primary employer, and one or more
gates for all other employers or suppliers at the sites
When such separate gates are established, the union is
obligated to picket solely at the primary gate unless it
can show that the neutrality of the gates has been violat-
ed
In Iron Workers Local 118 (Tutor-Saliba Corp), 285
NLRB 162, 167 fn 12 (1987), Administrative Law Judge
Timothy D Nelson stated very succinctly
Although Sec 8(b)(4) is among the more prolix
and complicated of the statutory provisions which
we must interpret and apply, its application in
common situs-reserved gate situations is by now
mostly straightforward, uncomplicated, and well-
known to building trades unions and to their attor-
neys It is not an oversimplification to summarize
whole volumes of law in this area with the state-
ment that to avoid running afoul of Sec 8(b)(4) a
picketmg union must at least stay away from gates
posted for and used by persons other than the
person with whom it has a primary labor dispute,
unless it can show that it has a factually-grounded
belief that the primary disputant is likewise using
the ostensibly neutral gate There can be exception-
al situations, of course
While acknowledging that It picketed the South Elm
Street gate B (the gate set up for the neutral employers)
beginning November 30, Respondent relies on three de-
fenses that it alleges cleanses what might otherwise be
lawful picketing under Section 8(b)(4) of the Act The
first two defenses are related to the location of the re-
served gate—gate A, that because it is along a road that
is a continuation of the exits of two major highways (one
an interstate highway) the speed of the vehicles passing
the gate made it ineffective for the display and transmis-
sion of its message as well as unsafe for the pickets car-
rying that message Additionally, Respondent contends
that its picketing should be excused because McCleary
violated the reserved gate system on November 22 when
one of its trucks entered through gate A and exited the
facility through gate B
In Electrical Workers IBEW Local 501 (C W Pond
Electric), 269 NLRB 274 (1984), the Board rejected the
respondent's reliance on Electrical Workers IBEW Local
453 (Southern Sun), 237 NLRB 829 (1978), stating "In
the mstant case, the primary reserved gate was clearly
marked and maintained, and thus he Respondent Union
was able to convey its message directly to the primary
employer and its employees, visitors, suppliers and the
general public" Electrical Workers IBEW Local 400
502 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(County of Ocean), 269 NLRB 119, 122 (1985), the ad-
ministrative law judge (as affirmed by the Board) dis-
missed the union's defense that picketing of the primary
gate as impaired because it was so remote, stating
"While this gate may not have been the ideal reserved
gate for primary enlployees from the Union's standpomt,
it certainly was sufficient to meet all the criteria set forth
by the Board in those cases dealing with reserved gates"
Respondent's defense herein is not that the primary gate
was too remote, conversely, the allegation is that vehi-
cles passed the gate at such an accelerated speed that
they were not able to fully read or comprehend the mes-
sage the Respondent was attemptmg to spread I find this
defense without merit My viewing of the videotape pre-
sented by Respondent, together with the other record
testimony convinces me that individuals driving past gate
A had time to read some or all of the picket signs, if
they were there Additionally, cars entering Umon Street
from Franklin Street had ample time to observe the signs
as did cars on Union Street, slowing to turn nght into
Franklin Street True, it may not have been the perfect
location for Respondent's purposes, or the location that
Respondent would have chosen if it had the power or
ability to do so, but that is not required Local 400, supra
This gate's location did not unreasonably deprive the
Union of its right to reach the public, Electrical Workers
IBEW Local 501 (C W Pond Electric) v NLRB, 756
F 2d 888 (D C Cir 1985), nor did it substantially impair
the effectiveness of the picketing, Carpenters Local 354
(Sharp & Tatro Development), 268 NLRB 382 (1983) As
the Board stated in Carpenters Local 33 (C B Construc-
tion), 289 NLRB 528 (1988) "Although the primary gate
location may not have been ideal, we note that Board
precedent does not require primary reserved gate place-
ments calculated to maximize a picket's chances to reach
members of the public" I therefore reject this defense
The next defense is that the speed of the cars passing
gate A made it unsafe for picketing at that gate The tes-
timony of Parisi, together with the videotape supplied by
Respondent, establish that there is a sidewalk about 3
feet wide between gate A and the adjacent roadway In
addition, at the time the videotape was taken, there was
snow on the ground My viewing of the videotape dis-
closes no substantial danger to picketmg at gate A, m
fact, Respondent picketed at that location on November
22 and 28 and December 7, all, apparently, without inci-
dent As stated, supra, my viewing of the videotape con-
vinces me that the vehicles did not pass the gate at an
excessive speed and a number of them slowed down,
substantially to turn on Franklin Street, or slowed down
to accommodate cars in front of them that were turnmg
into Franklin Street In addition, the chain link fence and
the two gates were erected around the site weeks before,
and without reference to, the instant dispute To require
Turner to reconstruct the chain link fence and the gates
surrounding the site for the convenience of Respondent's
pickets, and the effectiveness of its message, would be
unfair and unwarranted in the instant situation I there-
fore reject this defense, as well 2
2 Counsel for Respondent in his bnef, attaches the decision of Chief
Judge Ellen Bree Burns, of the United States Distnct Court, Distnct of
Finally, Respondent defends that its picketing of the
reserved gate should be excused because of the violation
of the reserved gate by the McCleary truck on Novem-
ber 22 It is, of course, true that the picketing union need
not comply with the reserved gate if the contractors on
the site do not comply However, the Board does not re-
quire perfect compliance and excuses noncompliance by
the employers on the site in two situations Where the
noncompliance was isolated and where even if the non-
compliance was more than isolated, where the reserved
gate system was rehabilitated and reestablished and was
subsequently complied with In Plumbers Local 48 (Cal-
vert Contractors), 249 NLRB 1183 (1980), the Board
stated that "isolated occurrences did not establish a
pattern of destruction of the reserve gate system suffi-
cient to justify resumption of picketing at the neutral
gates" And in Operating Engineers Local 18 (Dodge Ire-
land), 236 NLRB 199 (1978), the Board stated "the few
instances of misuse of a neutral gate by suppliers of the
primary employer were not sufficient to justify Respond-
ent's picketing of the neutral gates" Assuming arguendo
that the reserved gate system in the instant matter had
broken down, the law is clear that an employer may ef-
fectively rehabilitate or reestablish the reserve gate
system so long as the union is properly notified and the
system is subsequently honored Electrical Workers IBEW
Local 332 (WS B Electric), 269 NLRB 417 (1984), Iron
Workers Local 433 (Oltmans Construction), 272 NLRB
1182 (1984), NLRB v Carpenters Local 1622 (Wood & As-
sociates), 786 F 2d 903, 905 (9th Cir 1986)
In the instant matter, on November 22, a handpamted
plywood sign was placed on the gate reserved for
McCleary—the entrance that 2 days later would official-
ly become gate A Later that day, on one occasion, a
McCleary truck entered through that gate and exited
through the South Elm Street gate That was the extent
of the taint of the reserved gates General Counsel's posi-
tion is that the single taint on November 22 does not
excuse the picketing because the reserved gate was not
formally established until November 4, when the official
signs were posted on the gates and telegrams were sent
to the Respondent informing them of the creation of the
reserved gates I agree with General Counsel and recom-
mend that this defense be dismissed, not only was there
only one isolated instance of the employers violating the
reserve gate, but subsequent to that situation, the em-
ployers established (or reestablished) the reserved gate
system and honored that system Iron Workers Local 433
(Chris Crane), 288 NLRB 717 (1980) By picketing gate
B, reserved for the neutrals, since November 30 (when
McCleary was not on the site), Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(1) and (n)(B) of the Act
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 J H Hogan, Inc is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
Connecticut, and asks that I take judicial notice of the fact that Chief
Judge Burns denied the Regional Director's request for a preliminary in-
junction under Sec 10(1) of the Act, finding a "reasonable perception of
danger at Gate A" For the reasons stated above, I respectfully disagree
with Chief Judge Bums' finding
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 677 (J H HOGAN) 503
2 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 677,
AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act
3 By inducing and encouraging individuals employed
by Hogan, Manafort Bros, or by other persons engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to
engage in a stnke or refusal in the course of their em-
ployment to perform services, and by threatening, coerc-
ing, and restraining the above-named Employers, or
other persons engaged in commerce or business oper-
ations affecting commerce with an object of forcing or
requiring the above-named persons to cease doing busi-
ness with McCleary Bros, Inc , International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local 677, AFL-CIO has engaged
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
memung of Section 8(b)(4)(0 and (n)(B) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend
that it be ordered to cease and desist 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 recommend-
ed3
ORDER
The Respondent, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, Local 677, AFL-CIO, Waterbury, Connecticut, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall
I Cease and desist from
(a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed
by J H Hogan, Inc, Manafort Bros, Inc , or other per-
sons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce to engage in a strike or refusal in the course
of employment to use, manufacture, process, transport,
or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, ma-
terials, or commodities or to perform any services, where
an object thereof is to force or require the above-named
Employers, or any person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce, to cease using, selling, han-
dling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products
of, or to cease doing business with, McCleary Bros, Inc
(b) In any manner threatening, coercing or restraining
J H Hogan, Inc , Manafort Bros, Inc , or any other
persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require
the above-named 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, McCleary Bros, Inc
3 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
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 " 4 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
34, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to members are customarily posted Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material
(b) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 34
signed copies of the notice in sufficient number for post-
ing by the Employers, if willing, at all places where no-
tices to 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
4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board"
APPENDIX
NOTICE To 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
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered 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 J H Hogan, Inc, Manafort
Bros, Inc, or any other persons engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in a
strike or a refusal in the course of 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 above-named Employers, or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry af-
fecting commerce, to cease using, selling, handling, trans-
porting, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or cease
doing business with, McCleary Bros, Inc
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain J H
Hogan, Inc, Manafort Bros, Inc , or any other persons
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, where an object thereof is to force or require the
above-named Employers or any other persons engaged
in commerce to cease using, selling, handling, transport-
504 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or cease
doing business with, McCleary Bros, Inc
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 677,
AFL-CIO