Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to section 3.03 are (1) the subcontractor industry proviso, and (2) the work preservation theory. Section 8(e)’s con struction industry proviso states that the prohibition against hot cargo agreements does not “apply to an agreement between a labor organization and an employer in the construction industry relating to the contracting or subcontracting of work to be done at the site of the construction, alteration, painting, or repair of a building, structure, or other work.” 29 U.S.C. § 158(e); see, e.g., Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645, 102 S.Ct. 2071, 72 L.Ed.2d 398 (1982); Connell Constr. Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 100, 421 U.S. 616, 95 S.Ct. 1830, 44 L.Ed.2d 418 (1975); Gen. Truck Drivers Local No. 957 v. NLRB, 934 F.2d 732, 737-39 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); N.L.R.B. v. Int’l Broth. of Teamsters Local 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that arbitration clause which was included with product mailed to customer and with proviso that customer could return product within 30 days was binding on customer who did not return computer (B) holding that the mere delivery of documents  does not confer jurisdiction (C) holding that a plaintiff analogous to ms salyer who did not work in private homes did not fall within the companionship services exemption (D) holding delivery work did not fit within construction industry proviso (E) holding that your work exclusion is triggered only where the damage at issue is to work performed by you and is caused by work performed by you  and does not apply to damage caused to original construction of a house during later repair work
Output (English): holding that a plaintiff analogous to ms salyer who did not work in private homes did not fall within the companionship services exemption