## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 28 48
No. 1 1- 31 15

__ __ __ __ __ _

Lab or ers Dis tri ct Co un ci l o f Mi nn es ot a *

an d No rth Dako ta

, *

*

Pet it io ne r/C ro ss Res po nd en t, * Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of

* an Orde r of

th e Nat io na l

v. * Lab or Rel at io ns Bo ard

. *
Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Bo ard

, *

*

Res po nd en t/ Cro ss Pet it io ne r. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: May 16 , 20 12
Fi le d: Aug us t 7 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re WOL LMAN, BEAM, an d LOKEN, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

The Lab or ers Dis tri ct Co un ci l of Min ne so ta an d Nort h Dako ta (“ th e Uni on ”)

pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of a de ci si on of th e Nati on al Lab or Rel at io ns Bo ard or de rin g th e
Uni on to ceas e an d des is t vi ol at in g § 8 (b )(4 )(i i)( B) of the Nati on al Lab or Rel at io ns

Act (“ NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 15 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B), by co erci ng Lak e Area Fen ce, a ne wly

fo rm ed co m

m erci al fe n ci ng su bc on tra ct or , no t to do fen ce in st al la ti on wor k fo r

Cen tu ry Fen ce Co m

pa ny, a no nu ni on co nt ract or

. Co nc lu di n g t ha t th e Bo ard ’s

de ci si on is a reas on ab le co ns tru ct io n of th e st at ut e an d is su pp or te d b y s u b st an ti al

ev id en ce on th e ad m in is tra ti ve reco rd as a who le

, we de ny th e pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w an dg r a n t t h e Bo ard ’s cro ss -p et it io n to en fo rce it s Deci si on an d Ord er. See 29 U.S. C

.

§ 1 60 (e); NLRB v. Pi pe fit te rs , 42 9 U.S. 5 07 , 52 8, 5 31 (19 77 ) (s ta nd ard of r ev ie w).

I.

As rel ev an t he re, § 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B) pr ov id es : “ It sh al l be an un fai r la bo r pr act ic e

fo r a la bo r or ga ni zat io n or it s ag en ts

. . . (4 )

. . . (ii ) to th reat en , co erce , or res tra in an y

pe rs on

. . . whe re

. . . an ob ject th ereo f is

. . . (B) forc in g or requ iri ng an y pe rs on

. . .
to ceas e do in g bu si ne ss wit h an y ot he r pe rs o n

. ” Th e s t at ut e is pa rt of § 8( b) (4 ), in

whi ch Co ng res s cu rb ed th e us e of co erci ve an d di sr up ti ve un io n act io ns un de rta ke n

to pr es su re a ne ut ral or se co nd ary em pl oyer (h ere, Lak e Area) wit h th e in te nt of

fo rci ng th e ne ut ral to ceas e do in g bu si ne ss wit h a pr im ary em pl oyer (h ere, Cen tu ry )

wit h whi ch th e un io n ha s an on -g oi ng co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng di sp ut e. Ozark In te rio rs , In c. v. Lo c a l 9 7 8 C a rp en te rs , 95 7 F.2 d 56 6, 56 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ). “ Res tri ct io ns on

se co nd ary bo y co tt s

. . . im pl em en t du al co ng res si on al ob jecti ve s of pr es erv in g th e rig ht of la bo r or ga ni zat io ns to br in g p r es su re to be ar on of fen di ng em

pl oyers in

pr im ary la bo r di sp ut es an d of sh ie ld in g un o f f e n d in g em

pl oyers an d ot he rs fro m

pr es su res an d co nt ro ve rs ie s no t th ei r own .” Sh eet Met al Wo r k e r s ’ In t’l Ass ’n v. NLRB, 98 9 F .2d 51 5, 5 19 (D.C. Cir . 19 93 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

S ect io n 8( b) (4 ) is a co m

pl ex st at ut e th at “ de sc rib es an d co nd em ns sp e c i f i c

un io n co nd uc t di rect ed to s p e c i f ic ob jecti ve s.” Loc al 19 76

, Uni te d Bh d. of
Carp en te rs (San d Doo r), 35 7 U.S. 9 3

, 98 (1 95 8)

. The st at ut or y la nd sc ap e is ev en

m or e co m

pl ex in cas es , su ch as t h i s , whi ch in vo lv e co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng in th e

co ns tru ct io n in du st ry

. In 19 59

, Co ng res s ov erru le d th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s San d Doo r
de ci si on by am en di ng § 8( b) (4 ) to ad d su bs ect io n (ii ) an d by en act in g § 8( e), th e “ ho t

carg o” pr ov is io n th at pr oh ib it s co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag r eem en ts in whi ch an

em pl oyer ag rees “ to ceas e do in g bu si ne ss wit h an y ot he r pe rs on ,” su ch as a se co nd ary

em pl oyer. 29 U.S.C. § 15 8( e). Bu t a pr ov is o to § 8( e) st at es th at it do es no t ap pl y to

ag reem en ts “ in th e co ns tru ct io n in du st ry rel at in g to th e co nt ract in g or su bc on tra ct in g

-2

-of wor k to be do ne at [a co ns t r u c t i on job ] si te .” See ge ne ral ly W oe lk e & Ro m ero

Fram in g, In c. v. N LR B, 45 6 U.S. 64 5, 65 2- 66 0 (1 98 2)

. Howev er, “ reg ard le ss of

whe th er an ag reem en t is val id un de r [th e co ns tru ct io n in du st ry pr ov is o to ] § 8(e ), it

m ay no t be en fo rced by m ean s th at wou ld vi ol at e § 8( b) (4 ).” Pi pe fit te rs , 42 9 U.S. at

52 1. Th at is th e st at ut or y in te rs ect io n t he Bo ard co nf ro nt ed in th is cas e.

II

.

The Uni on , on be ha lf o f se ve n Mi nn es ot a lo cal Lab or ers un io ns wit h 11 ,00 0

m em be rs , en te red in to a “ pr e-h ire ” Hig hwa y -Heav y ag re em en t wit h a m ul ti -em pl oyer

gr ou p, th e Ass oc ia te d Gen eral Co nt ract or s of Mi nn es ot a. As pe rm it te d by th e 1

p r o v i s o t o § 8( e), Arti cl e 16 of th e Hig hwa y -Heav y ag reem en t pr ov id es th at a

pa rti ci pa ti ng em

pl oyer, “ whi le su bl et ti ng or co nt ract in g ou t la bo rers wor k at th e job

si te

. . . wil l s ub le t o r co nt ract su ch work on ly to a s ub co nt ract or who ha s s ig ne d o r
is ot he rwis e bo un d by a writ te n la bo r ag reem en t” wit h th e Uni on

. Mo st co ns tru ct io n
si te s in Mi nn es ot a are “ un io n pr ojec ts ” in whi ch th e ge ne ral co nt ract or is a si gn at or y

pa rty.

Cen tu ry , ba se d in W is co ns in

, is a no nu ni on co nt ract or th at fo r m an y y ears ha s
bi d on an d be en award ed fen ci ng co nt ract s or su bc on tra ct s on un io n an d no nu ni on

pr ojec ts in Mi nn es ot a. Cen tu ry em pl oys no la bo rers a n d do es no t pe rfo rm fen ce

in st al la ti on wor k. Rat he r, it p r o c u r e s an d de li ve rs fen ci ng m at eri al s an d se rv es as

“ co ns tru ct io n m an ag er” fo r fen ci ng wor k at th e job s i t e

. Fo r pr ojec ts award ed to

ge ne ral co nt ract or s who are si g n a t or ie s to th e Hig hwa y -Heav y ag reem en t, Cen tu ry

Rec og ni zi ng th e un iq ue hi st or y of ba r g ai ni ng in th e co ns tru ct io n in du st ry , 1

whe re em pl oym en t at pa rti cu la r job si te s te nd s to be tra ns it or y , § 8( f) al lo ws un io ns

an d em pl oyers to e n t e r in to pr e-h ire ag reem en ts be fo re th e un io n ha s es ta bl is he d

m ajor it y st at us

. 29 U.S.C. § 1 58 (f). “ Unl ik e b arg ai ni ng ag reem en ts wit h m ajor it y

st at us un io ns , § 8( f) pr e-h ire ag reem en ts m ay be un il at eral ly rep ud ia t e d aft er th ey

ex pi re.” Mc Ken zi e Eng ’g Co . v. NLRB, 3 03 F.3d 90 2, 9 08 n.3 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2)

.

-3

-us es on ly un io n- affi li at ed su bc on tra ct or s to do wor k th at is wit hi n th e juri sd ic ti on of

lo cal Iro n Work ers an d Lab or ers un io ns

.

Beg in ni ng in 20 07

, Lab o r e rs Loc al 56 3 be ga n pr es su rin g si gn at or y ge ne ral

co nt ract or s no t to e n t e r in to su bc on tra ct s wit h Cen tu ry be cau se it ha d no un io n

ag reem en t. Cen tu ry ap pr oa ch ed th e Uni on , of feri ng co nc es si on s an d arg ui ng th at it s

fu nc ti on as co ns tru ct io n m an ag er us in g un io n la bo r di d no t vi ol at e Arti cl e 16 of th e Hig hwa y -Heav y ag reem en t, bu t refu si ng th e Uni on ’s de m an d th at Cen tu ry si gn a

un io n co nt ract if it wis he d to co nt in ue to be award ed su bc on tra ct s on un io n pr ojec ts

in Mi nn es ot a. The Bo ard ’s Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e (ALJ) fo un d th at

, whe n

Cen tu ry refu se d th e Uni on ’s de m an d, “ th e Uni on

. . . ex pr es se d res ul ta nt ho st il it y .” 2

The Uni on th en tu rn ed it s at te nt io n to ne ut ral su b c o nt ract or s pe rfo rm in g

Cen tu ry ’s fen ce in st al la ti on wor k. In 20 08

, a Uni on rep res en ta ti ve to ld Cen tu ry th at

if it refu se d to si gn a co nt ract

, th e Uni on wou ld no t si gn or ren ew § 8( f) ag reem en ts

wit h an y su bc on tra ct or who di d bu si ne ss wit h Cen tu ry ; su bc on tra ct or s co ul d wor k

wit h Kell er Fen ce if th ey wis he d to co nt in ue wor ki ng on un io n pr ojec ts

. Co ns is te nt

wit h th is th reat

, th e Uni on re f u s e d t o r en ew § 8( f) ag reem en ts wit h two Cen tu ry

su bc on tra ct or s, Mid -Am eri ca Fenc in g and W in sl ow Fenc in g. In res po ns e, Cen tu ry

fil ed a § 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B) un fai r la bo r pr act ic e ch arg e. A s p a r t o f a Set tl em en t Agr eem en t ap pr ov ed by the Bo ard ’s Reg io na l Di rect or , th e Uni on ag reed :

W E WI LL NOT re fu se to si gn a co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t wit h

or ot he rwis e th reat en co erce or res tra in Mi d- Am eri ca Fen ci ng , W in sl ow Fen ci ng or an y ot he r pe rs on to fo rce Mi d- Am eri ca Fen ci ng , W in sl ow

The reas on fo r th e Uni on ’s ho st il it y is ap pa ren t. A Uni on wit ne ss te st ifi ed th at 2

Kell er Fe nc e co m

pa ny, t he la rg es t Un io n s ig na to ry fen ce co nt ract or , sai d “ it wou ld
be ni ce” if Cen tu ry be cam e a si gn at or y co nt ract or be cau s e t h a t w ou ld in crea se it s la bo r co st s o n n on un io n p ro jects , creat in g a “ le ve l p la y in g fi el d” for Kell er.

-4

-Fen ci ng or an y ot he r pe rs on to st op do in g bu si ne ss wit h Cen tu ry Fen ce

Co m pa ny.

Mi d- Am eri ca an d Win sl ow t he n re ga in ed th ei r st at us as u ni on su bc on tra ct or s.

Th a t b r o u gh t th e pr im ary di sp ut e be twee n th e Uni on an d Cen tu ry to Apr il

20 10

, whe n Lak e Area en te red th e pi ct ur e. Owner Sh aro n Ro us h fo rm ed Lak e Area

as a fen ci ng su bc on tra ct or sa ti sf y in g m in or it y bu si ne ss en te rp ris e req ui rem en ts

. Ro us h ha d two em

pl oyees, he r so n an d an ex pe rie nc ed un io n in st al le r; sh e in te nd ed

to wor k wit h Cen tu ry an d be co m e a un io n- affi li at ed su bc on tra ct or be cau se th ere was

m or e un io n th an no nu ni on wor k av ai la bl e. Ro us h m et wit h Uni on r e p r es en ta ti ve s,
si gn ed th e Hig hwa y -Heav y ag reem en t su bjec t to th e Uni on ’s ap pr ov al

, an d su bm it ted

th e Uni on ’s ne w-co nt ract or p r o c es si ng fo rm

. Uni on rep res en ta ti ve s ap pe ared

rece pt iv e un ti l Ro us h di sc lo se d th a t Lak e Area in te nd ed to wor k wit h Cen tu ry

. W it hi n on e ho ur of th is di sc lo su re, th e Uni on no ti fie d Lak e Ar e a t h a t i t wou ld no t

si gn an ag reem en t

. The ex pl an at io n was th at Ro us h ha d su bm it te d in co m pl et e

in fo rm at io n. Lak e Area th en fil ed th is § 8(b )(4 )(i i)( B) un fai r la bo r pr act ic e ch arg e.

The ALJ he ld an ev id en ti ary he ari ng at whi ch Ro us h an d rep res en ta ti ve s of

Cen tu ry , Mi d- Am eri ca, an d th e Uni on te st ifi ed at le ng th

. In a th or ou gh op in io n, th e

ALJ fir st cred it ed th e t e st im on y of Ro us h an d th e Cen tu ry an d Mi d- Am eri ca

rep res en ta ti ve s, reject in g as pr et ex tua l the Uni on Pres id en t’s te st im on y th at he di d no t

si gn a co nt ract wit h Lak e Area be cau se Ro us h ha d li ed to hi m

. On ap pe al

, th e Uni on
do es no t ch al le ng e th e ALJ’s cre di bi li ty find in gs . The ALJ t he n c on cl ud ed :

[T]he ev id en ce de m on st rat es th at th e Uni on ’s in te nt in de cl in in g
to al lo w Lak e Area to be co m e si gn at or y to th e Agr eem en t was to fo rce Cen tu ry to be co m e a si gn at or y co nt ract or by de pr i v i n g it of

su bc on tra ct or s to wor k on un io n job si te s un le ss it ag reed to a co ll ect iv eba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t wit h th e Uni on

. It is in he ren t th at in th is m et ho d
of pe rs ua di ng Cen tu ry to be co m e a un io n co nt ract or , pr es su re m us t fir st

-5

-be ap pl ie d to ne ut ral se co nd ary em pl oyers su ch as Lak e Area, em pl oyers wit ho ut th e ab il it y to in flu en ce th e la bo r rel at io ns of Cen tu ry

. As th e Bo ard sa id in Lim

ba ch

, i t is th is se co nd ary ob ject
-- to en m es h Lak e 3

Area in th e Uni on ’s di sp ut e wit h Cen tu ry , wit h th e a i m o f co m pe ll in g th e la tt er to be co me a s i g n a t o ry to a co nt ract wit h th e Uni on -- th at

ren de rs th e Uni on ’s o t h e r w i se le ga l refu sa l to en te r in to an 8( f)
rel at io ns hi p with Lak e Area, un la wfu l. Lim ba ch , su pr a at 31 5. And it
is ex act ly su ch ne ut ral se co nd ary em pl oyers as Lak e Area th at Co ng res s, by en act in g Sect io n 8( b) (4 )(B)

, in te nd ed to sh ie ld fro m se co nd ary
pr es su re, s uc h a s t ha t i m

po se d b y th e Uni on he rei n.

Ack no wled gi ng th e Uni on ’s f reed om no t to e n t e r i nt o a § 8( f) ag reem en t wit h ne w

em pl oyer Lak e A r e a un le ss it s m ot iv e is un la wfu l, th e ALJ reject ed th e Gen eral

Co un se l’s requ es t th at th e Uni on be or de red “ to im pl em en t co nt ract ua l t erm s th at it

ha s no t ag reed to .” In st ead

, th e ALJ reco m m en de d th at

, co ns is te nt wit h th e rem ed y

in Lim ba ch

, th e Bo ard or de r th e Uni on to “ ceas e an d de si st fro m th reat en i n g ,

co erci ng , or r e s t r a i n i n g Lak e Area Fen ce, In c.

. . . wit h an ob ject of fo rci ng or

req ui rin g Lak e Area Fen ce

. . . to ceas e do in g bu si ne ss wit h Ce n t u r y Fen ce

Co m pa ny.” Th e Bo ard , o ne m em be r di ss en ti ng , agr eed wit h t he ALJ th at Lim ba ch

“ is no t m ean in gf

ul ly di st in gu is ha bl e fro m th is cas e.” It affi rm ed th e ALJ’s fin di ng s

an d c on cl us io ns an d a do pt ed th e cea se -an d- de si st ord er re co m m en de d b y

th e ALJ.

II I.

On ap pe al

, th e Uni on fir st arg ue s th at th e Bo ard ’s Ord er is co nt rary to a la bo r

or ga ni zat io n’s free do m of co nt ract

, a fu nd am en ta l po li c y o f th e Nati on al Lab or
Rel at io ns Act reco gn iz ed in H.K. Po rte r Co

. v. NLRB, 39 7 U.S. 99

, 10 8 (1 97 0)

. W e

ag ree wit h th e U n i o n t h a t free do m of co nt ract is an im po rta nt rig ht res erv ed to

Loc al Uni on No. 80

, S h e e t M e t al W or ke rs (Lim ba ch Co .), 30 5 NLRB 31 2 3 (1 99 1) , e nf ’d i n rel ev an t pa rt, Sh eet Met al W or ke rs In t ’l A s s ’n v . NLRB , 9 89 F.2 d
51 5 (D.C . Cir . 19 93 ).

-6

-e mp l o ye r s an d un io ns in th e fed eral la bo r la ws. Fo r th at reas on , earl ie r in th e s e

pr oc eed in gs , a di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e Reg io na l Dire ct or ’s req ue st fo r a pr el im in ary

in jun ct io n un de r § 10 (l) of th e Act, 29 U.S.C. § 16 0( l), th at wou ld ha ve “ fo rce[ d] th e
Uni on to en te r in to an d ab id e by an ag reem en t th at it di d no t m ak e” wit h Lak e Area.

Ost hu s v. Lab or ers Dis t. Co un ci l, 74 2 F. Su pp

. 2d 10 42

, 10 48 (D. Mi nn

. 20 10 ). Bu t

free do m of co nt ract is no t an ab so lu te rig ht

. “ Vari ou s pr act ic es in en fo rci ng th e Act

m ay to so m e ex te nt li m it free do m to co nt ract as th e pa rti es de si re.” H.K. Po rte r, 39 7

U.S. at 10 8 n.6

. The is su e is whe th er th e Uni on ha d an un fet te red rig h t to refu se a § 8 (f) co nt ract for a m ot iv e th e Act de cl ares to be un la wfu l. We thi nk cle arl y no t.

Th e NLRA’ s se co nd ary bo y co tt pr ov is io ns do no t req ui re th at th e co er c i v e

co nd uc t it se lf be un la wfu l. “ In de ed

, c o u r t s h a ve ro ut in el y he ld th at th e ot he rwis e
le ga l ex erci se of rig ht s affo rd ed by a co l l e ct iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t can be co m e

un la wfu l whe n ai m ed at se cu rin g an ob jecti ve pr oh ib it ed by se ct io n 8( b) (4 ).” Bro wn

& Roo t, Inc. v. La. St at e AFL-CIO, 10 F.3 d 31 6, 32 3- 24 (5 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (co ll ect in g

cas es ). “ [A]n im

pr op er m ot iv e m ay m ak e un la wfu l wha t is ot he rwis e un as sa il ab le

co nd uc t.” Lim

ba ch Co

. v. Sh eet Met al W or ke rs In t’l Ass ’n, 94 9 F.2 d 12 41

, 12 55 (3 d

Ci r. 19 91 ) (en ba n c )

. “Th e rig ht of a un io n un il at eral ly to te rm in at e a co nt ract ua l

re la ti on sh ip fo r le gi ti m at e reas on s

. . . d oe s no t ex te nd to te rm in at in g fo r a pu rp os e

of ap pl y in g eco no m ic co erci on to ach ie ve a pr oh ib it ed se co n d a r y o bjec ti ve .”

Got tfr ie d v. Sh eet Met al W or ke rs ’ In t’l Ass ’n, 87 6 F.2 d 12 45

, 12 51 (6 th Ci r. 19 89 ).

The refo re, th e Bo ard an d rev ie win g co ur ts “ lo ok to th e in te nt io n of pa rti es in co erci ng

ne ut ral pa rti es , no t to th e ge ne ral rig ht s of pa rti es to ta ke pa rti cu la r act io ns .” Tay lo r

Mi lk Co

. v. In t ' l Bh d. of Team st ers , 24 8 F.3 d 23 9, 24 5 (3 d Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed

, 53 4

U.S. 10 55 (2 00 1)

. Fo r ex am pl e, la wfu l un io n act io ns su ch as st rik in g an d pi ck et in g,

fil in g gr ie va nc es , wit hh ol di ng di sc re t i o na ry co nc es si on s, an d pe acef ul gr ou p
sh op pi ng ha ve al l be en co nd em ne d as vi ol at in g § 8( b) (4 ) wh e n em pl oyed fo r th e

-7

-pu rp os e o f pu tt in g co erci ve eco no m ic pr es su re on a ne ut ral em pl oyer to fur th er t he

un io n’s p ro sc rib ed sec on da ry ob jecti ve

. 4

Alt ern at iv el y , t he Uni on arg ue s th at th e Bo ard ’s r eme d y in th is cas e vi ol at es

th e fu nd am en ta l po li cy be cau se it “ am ou nt s to a di rect iv e

. . . th at th e Uni on can no t

co nt in ue to ex erci se it s free do m of co nt ract .” Bu t th e or d e r c o nt ai ns no su ch

di rect iv e. As in Lim

ba ch

, th e Bo ard an d th e ALJ reject ed th e NLRB Gen eral

Co un se l’s req ue st fo r su ch a rem ed y , in st ead or de rin g on ly th at th e Uni on ceas e an d

de si st fro m th e co erci on of a se co nd ary em pl oyer m ad e un la wfu l by § 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B).

The Bo ard ’s rem ed y gi ve s Lak e Area a f r e s h op po rtu ni ty to be co m e a si gn at or y

su bc on tra ct or , whi le reco gn iz in g th e Uni on ’s rig ht to reject a § 8( f) agree m en t with

Lak e Area fo r an y la wfu l reas on

. G i v e n it s rep eat ed pr act ic e of co erci ng Cen tu ry

su bc on tra ct or s, Uni on of

fic ia ls m ay fin d it di ffi cu lt to refu se to en te r in to or to ren ew § 8( f) ag reem en ts wit h fen ci ng su bc on tra ct or s who m eet ob jecti ve st a nd ard s of

acce pt ab le co nt ract in g par ti es

. Bu t i f so , th at wil l b e th e res ul t o f th e Uni on ’s pr io r

un la wfu l ac ti on s, n ot a vi ol at io n o f th e fu nd am en ta l p ol ic ie s o f th e NLRA.

Mo re in tri gu in g qu es ti on s are rai se d by th e Uni on ’s co nt en ti on th at th e Bo ard

erre d in co nc lu di ng th at th e Uni on en ga ge d in th e req ui si te co erci on

. The ap pl ic ab le 5

st an da rd of rev ie w co nt ro ls ou r res ol ut io n of th is is su e. The Uni on st riv es to po se a

qu es ti on of la w, arg ui ng th at ch oo si ng no t to en te r in to a co nt ract ca nn ot be un la wfu l

co erci on wit hi n th e m ean in g of § 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B) be cau se § 8( f) ag reem en ts are who ll y

vo lu nt ary. B ut it is th e effe ct on th e se co nd ary em pl oyer, n ot th e la wfu ln es s of th e

See Lim ba ch

, 94 9 F.2 d at 12 53 ; Loc al Uni on No. 25

, In t’l Bh d. of Team st ers 4

v. NLRB, 83 1 F.2 d 11 49

, 11 53 -5 4 (1 st Ci r. 19 87 ); Sh eet Met al W or ke rs , Loc al Uni on No. 91 v. NLRB, 90 5 F.2 d 41 7, 42 4 (D.C. Ci r. 19 90 ); Py e v. Team st ers Loc al Uni on No. 1 22 , 61 F.3d 10 13 , 10 24 (1s t Ci r. 19 95 ).

The Uni on do es no t ch al le ng e th e Bo ard ’s fact -in te ns iv e fin di ng of th e ot he r 5

el em en t of a § 8( b) (4 )(i i)( B) vi ol at io n -- th at th e Uni on act e d w it h th e in te nt of
fo rci ng Lake Area t o c eas e d oi ng bu si ne ss wit h C en tu ry

.

-8

-un de rlyin g act io n, th at is th e cri ti cal in qu iry. The Bo ard ha s lo ng de fin ed “ co erci on ”

to in cl ud e “ eco no m ic re t a l i a ti on or pr es su re in a ba ck gr ou nd of a la bo r di sp ut e,”

de fin in g su ch co nd uc t to in cl ud e “ r e f u s i n g to ex ecu te a co ll ect iv e-b arg ai ni ng

ag reem en t or to refe r wor ke rs .” Sh eet Met al W or ke rs Loc al 91 (Sch eb le r Co .), 29 4

NLRB 7 66 , 77 5 (1 98 9) , enf ’d in rel ev an t pa rt, 90 5 F.2 d 41 7, 42 4 (D.C. Ci r. 19 90 );

acco rd Ass oc ia te d Gen . Con tra ct or s o f Cal ., Inc . v . NLRB ., 5 14 F.2 d 4 33 , 43 8 (9 th

Ci r. 19 75 ) (co erci on in cl ud es “ an y fo rm of eco no m ic pr es su re of a co m pe ll in g or

res tra in in g na tu re”)

. Exc e p t whe re Fi rs t Am en dm en t co nc ern s m ay req ui re gr eat er

cau ti on , th e Bo ard ’s in te rp ret at io n of co erci on is en ti tl ed to de fere nc e. See Py e, 61

6

F.3 d a t 1 02 3.

The Uni on ’s le ga l arg um en t is co nt rary to th e Bo ard ’s de ci si on in Lim ba ch th at

a u ni on en ga ge d in un la wfu l coer ci on by refu si ng to ren ew a s eco nd ary em pl oyer’s
§ 8( f) co nt ract

. Bec au se th e di sp ut e in vo lv ed m ul t i p l e l o cal un io ns , th e Bo ard ’s

co ns tru ct io n of the st at ut e was ul ti m at el y up he ld by th ree of ou r si st er circu it s. See

Sh eet Met al W or ke rs , 98 9 F.2 d at 52 0- 22 ; Lim ba ch

, 94 9 F.2 d at 12 56 -5 7; Got tfr ie d,

87 6 F.2 d at 12 51

. The Uni on at te m pt s to di st in gu is h Lim

ba ch be cau se it in vo lv ed th e

rep ud i a t i o n o r refu sa l to ren ew ex is ti ng § 8( f) ag reem en ts wit h an es ta bl is he d

co m pa ny. W e ag ree wit h th e Bo ard th at , i n c o n st ru in g th e st at ut or y pr oh ib it io n on

se co nd ary co erci on , th ere is no m ean in gf ul le ga l di st in ct io n be twee n refu si ng t o

ren ew an ex pi red § 8( f) ag reem en t, an d refu si ng to en te r in to an in it i a l § 8 ( f )

ag reem en t. W e n ot e, to o, t ha t t he Uni on in set tl in g C en tu ry ’s pri or § 8(b )(4 )(i i)( B)

ch arg e br oa dl y ag reed th at it wou ld no t “ refu se to si gn a co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng

ag reem en t wit h

. . . Mi d- Am eri ca Fen ci ng , W in sl ow Fen ci ng or an y ot he r pe rs on in

or de r to for ce” t ha t p ers on to st op do in g b us in es s wi th Cen tu ry

.

Su ch as cas es in vo lv in g pe a c e fu l pi ck et in g or ha nd bi ll in g. See Edwar d J. 6

DeBar to lo Co rp . v

. F la . Gu lf Co as t Bl dg . & Co ns tr. Trad es Co un ci l, 48 5 U.S. 5 68

, 57 7- 78 (1 98 8)

. Thi s cas e in vo lv es th e Uni on ’s eco no m ic pr es su re on C en tu ry ’s

su bc on tra ct or s, no t it s earl ie r effo rts to pe rs ua de ge ne ral co nt ract or si gn at or ie s no t to

su bc on tra ct wit h C en tu ry

.

-9

-The Uni on al so arg ue s th at it s act io ns were no t in fa ct eco no m ic al ly co erci ve

be cau se Lak e Area ha d no pr io r un io n affi li at io n, ha d n o rig ht to un io n affi li at io n,

an d co ul d co nt in ue wor ki ng as Cen tu ry ’s no nu ni on fen ci ng su bc on tra ct or on th e on e

no nu ni on pr ojec t th at Lak e Area ha d ob ta in ed

. Thi s is a se rio us is su e. Bu t it is fact

in te ns iv e. App lying th e de fere nt ia l su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce st an da rd of rev i ew, we

co nc lu de th e Bo ard ’s dec is io n m us t b e u ph el d.

Eve n th ou gh Lak e Area ha d no rig ht to a § 8( f) co nt ract

, th e reco rd es ta bl is he d

th at Ro us h fo rm ed th e ne w co m pa ny wit h a reas on ab le ex pe ct at i o n of be co m in g a

un io n fen ci ng su bc on tra ct or

. The Uni o n ’s c o nt ro l ov er si gn at or y st at us is a

“ po werfu l eco no m ic weap on ” whe n th at st at us di ct at es an em pl oyer’s acce ss to un io n

pr ojec ts an d wor ke rs

. Lim ba ch

, 94 9 F.2 d at 12 56

. Here, be cau se of Arti cl e 16 of th e Hig hwa y -Heav y ag re e men t

, th e Uni on ’s refu sa l ba rred Lak e Area fro m al l un io n

pr ojec ts in Mi nn es ot a at a ti m e whe n m or e un io n th an no nu ni on wor k was av ai la bl e.

It al so de pr iv ed Lak e Area of th e ot he r be ne fit s of un io n as so ci at io n, su ch as a read y

su pp ly of tra in ed la b o r , a n d it cri pp le d th e fle dg li ng en te rp ris e’s un io n- or ie nt ed

bu si ne ss pl an -- a pl an th e Uni on sh ou ld ha ve ap pl au de d. In th es e ci rcu m st an ces , th e

Bo ard reas on ab ly co nc lu de d th at th e Uni on ’s refu sa l wen t be y on d la wfu ll y

pe rs ua di ng Lak e Area to ceas e do in g bu si ne ss wit h Cen tu ry an d reac he d th e le ve l of

un la wfu l se co nd ary co erci on th ro ug h th e ap pl i c a t i o n of co m pe ll in g eco no m ic

pr es su re. See NLRB v. IBEW, 40 5 F.2 d 15 9, 16 1- 62 ( 9 t h C i r

. 19 68 ) (Bo ard

reas on ab ly fo un d un la wfu l e c o no m ic co erci on whe n th reat en ed § 8( f) co nt ract

te rm in at io n wou ld m ak e th e em pl oyer an “ in el ig ib le bu si ne ss as so ci at e in th e ey es

of

. . . ot he r [u ni on -aff

il ia te d] co nt ract or s” ), cert . den ie d, 3 95 U.S. 92 1 (1 96 9)

.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we den y th e Uni on ’s pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w an d gra nt

th e Bo ard ’s cro ss -p et it io n t o e nf or ce i ts Deci si on an d Ord er.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-