2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-11-2009 

# NL RB v . M etro Region al C ncl P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4679

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " NLR B v . M e tr o Re gion al C ncl " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1755. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1755H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas , Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe D i s tr i ct * of N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 4679 NAT I ONAL L AB OR RE L AT I ONS BO AR D,

P eti ti o n er, v. M ET ROP OLI TAN REGI ONA L COUNCI L OF CARP ENT ERS , S OUTHEAS TE RN P E NNS YL VANI A, S T AT E OF DE L AWARE AND E AS T E RN S HOR E OF M AR YL AND, UNI T E D B RO T HE RH OOD OF CA RP E NT E RS AND J OI NE RS OF AM E RI CA , R e sp o n d e n t.

O n A p p li ca ti o n fo r E n fo rce m en t of O rde r of the N ati o n al L ab o r R elati o n s B o ard ( B oar d C as e N os . 4- C C - 2463, 4- C C - 2482) Subm i t t ed: February3, 2009 B e f o re : M c K E E , S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges , a nd I RE N A S , Seni orD is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed : M ar ch 11, 2009) M er edi th L . J as on, E s q. L i nda J . D r eebe n, E s q. E dw ar d H ol zw anger , E s q. N ati o n al L ab o r R elati o n s B o ard2

1 0 9 9 1 4 th S tr e e t , N . W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20570 C ouns el forPet i t i oner St ephen J . H ol r oy d, E s q. J e n n i n g s S i g mo n d , P . C. T he Penn M utual T ow er s , 16th Fl oor 510 W al nutSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ouns el forR es pondent

_____________ OP I NI ON

_____________ I RE NAS , Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge. B ef o re the C o u rtis th e a p p li ca ti o n o f th e N ati o n al L ab o r R elati o n s B o ard ( “B oar d”) forenfor cementof a c eas e- and- des i s tO r deri s s ued aga i ns tthe M etr opol i t an R egi onal C ounci l of C arpent er s , Sout heas t ern Penns y l vani a, St at e of D el aw ar e and E as t ern Shor e of M ary l and, U ni t ed B r otherhood of C arpent er s and J oi ner s of A m er i ca (“the U n ion ”), on O ctob er 1 8 , 2 0 0 7 . T h e O rde r ad o p ted th e a d m inistrati v e law jud g e’s ( “A L J ”) det erm i nat i on thatthe U ni on had vi ol at ed Sect i on 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) of the N at i onal L a b o r R e latio n s A c t (“ A c t”) , 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 5 8 (b )(4 )(ii)(B ), an d h is re c o m m e n d a tio n th a t a b roa d o rde r be issue d . T h e U n ion arg u es th at th ere w as in su ff ici en t evid en ce to su p p o rt the B oar d’ s fi ndi ng thatthe U ni on had vi ol at ed Sect i on 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) and thattheT hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 29 U . S. C . § 160( e) . 1 3 B o a rd ’s is su a n c e o f

a b ro a d o rd e r w a s a n in a p p ro p ria te r e m e d y . F o r th e re a so n s s e t f o rth bel ow , the B oar d’ s appl i cat i on forenfor cementw i l l be gr ant ed. 1 I. A. C as e 4- C C - 2463 ar i s es outof s t at ement s m ade byB ruce J ones ( “J ones ”) , an o f f i c i a l o f th e Uni o n , t o To d d Str i n e ( “ Str i n e ” ) , a p r i n c i p a l o f 4 2 1 Che s tn u tPa r tn e r s , LP ( “C PL P”) on M ay3, 2006. C PL P w as the deve l operfora pr oj ecti nvol vi ng the conver s i on of an ol d bank bui l di ng at421 C hes tnutSt r eeti n Phi l adel phi a i nt o r es i dent i al condomi ni um uni t s . ( A pp. 180. ) W hi l e C PL P w oul d be del i ver i ng “r aw s pace ” t o the ind ividu al ow n ers, th eysu b co n tr ac ted o u t th e w o rk to b e p erf o rm ed o n the in fra stru cture t o tw o co m pan i es, C ym a B uil ders and A l oia C on struct i on . (A pp . 18 0-81.) B oth of t hese contr act or s us ed “98% uni on l abor . ” ( A pp. 182. ) H ow ever , tw o of the i ndi vi dual condomi ni um ow ner s contr act ed w i th A dams- B i ckel A s s oci at es , I nc. ( “A dams- B i ckel ”) to d o th e w o rk in th e iru n its . (A p p . 1 8 2 .) I n l at e A pr i l 2006, m ember s of the uni on r epr es ent i ng the empl oy ees w or ki ng on the el evat or s pi cket ed atthe C hes tnutSt r eets i t e. ( A pp. 183. ) Shor t l yther eaf t er , St r i ne r ece i ved s ever al t el ephone mes s ages fr om J ones . ( A pp. 183. ) O n M ay3, 2006, St r i ne re tu rn e d Jo n e s’s c a lls, at w h ich p o in t Jo n e s id e n tifie d h im se lf a s U n io n o f

f icia l an d to ld4

St r i ne he w i s hed t o di s cus s the C hes tnutSt r eetpr oj ect . ( A pp. 183. ) J ones not ed the pi cket i ng bythe el evat orw or ker s , and then s w i t ched t opi cs , s t at i ng, “W hati f outof the b lue, A d am s-B icke l i s g o ing to b e m y[Jo n es’s] p rob lem reg ard less[? ]” (A p p . 1 8 3 -84 . ) W h e n a sk e d w h y , Jo n e s e x p lain e d th a t itw a s b e c a u se A d a m s-B ick e l u se d “ u n f a ir contr act or s ” w ho di d notpay“the pr evai l i ng w ages . ” ( A pp. 184. ) A ft erdi s cus s i ng the conce ptof unfa i rw ages , J ones t ol d St r i ne thathe bel i eved A dams- B i ckel w as us i ng unfai rcontr act or s , and “[ i ] f that ’ s the w ayi t ’ s goi ng t o go the bui l di ng i s goi ng t o have a pr obl em. ” ( A pp. 184- 85. ) W hen Str i ne as ked w hathe meant , J ones expl ai ned that , “a p ro b le m ” m e a n t “ [ p ]r o te s ts , w o rk s to p p a g e s a n d p ro b le m s w ith d e liv e ri e s .” (A p p . 1 8 5 .) S trin e a sk e d h o w th e se “ p ro b lem s” c o u ld b e a v o id e d , an d ra th e r th a n d ire c tly an sw ering , Jo n es in d icated that the p rob lem s w en t bey o n d the U n ion , an d that there w ere pot ent i al di ffi cul t i es i nvol vi ng otheruni ons as w el l . ( A pp. 185. ) St r i ne s ugges t ed that J ones s peak t o s om eone a tA dams- B i ckel abouthi s conce rns . ( A pp. 185- 86. ) J ones r es ponded thathe had s poken t o s om eone ther e, butthat“he ha d t o w at ch w hathe s ai d” to th e A d a m s-B ick e l p rin c ip a l. (A p p . 1 8 6 .) Jo n e s f u rth e r sta ted , “if

A d a m s-B ick e l is in ther e and ther e’ s goi ng t o be a f i ght , i t ’ s goi ng t o go one w ayand i t ’ s notgoi ng t o be a good w ay . ” ( A pp. 187. ) St r i ne expl ai ned thathe had nothi ng t o do w i th A dams- B i ckel and thathi s ow n contr act or s had us ed uni on empl oy ees . ( A pp. 187. ) J ones r es ponded that“W e know thaty ou i ni t i al l ydi d the r i ghtthi ng and w e j us tw anty ou t o us e s om e of y o u r j u ic e to c o n v in c e A d a m s -B ic k e l to u s e f a irc o n tr a c to rs .” (A p p . 1 8 7 .)5

St r i ne expr es s ed conf

us i on as t o w hythe ac t i ons of i ndi vi dual ow ner s w er e of s uch co n ce rn, giv en that the m ajorityo f th e w o rk h ad b ee n d o n e w ith u n ion labo r. (A p p . 1 8 7 . ) J o n e s e x p l a i n e d th a t , “ I t ’ s a b o u tu p h o l d i n g wa g e s i n th e c i tyo f P h i l a d e l p h i a , wh i c h we se t.” (A p p . 1 8 8 .) F in a lly , S trin e to ld Jo n e s, “ I d o n ’t u n d e rsta n d w h e re w e ’re g o in g w ith thi s conver s at i on orw haty ou w antm e t o do. ” ( A pp. 188. ) J ones then conc l uded the c o n v e rsa tio n b yre itera tin g th a t, “I w a n t y o u to th in k a b o u t u sin g y o u r ju ice a n d talk in g to A d a m s -B ic k e l.” (A p p . 1 8 8 .) St r i ne and J ones had no furthercomm uni cat i ons . A dams- B i ckel fi l ed a c har ge w i th the B oar d on M ay5, 2006, al l egi ng thatJ ones ’ s conver s at i on w i th St r i ne cons t i tut ed thr eat s i n vi ol at i on of Sect i on ( 8) ( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) . ( A pp. 23. ) A compl ai ntw as i s s ued on J u n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 , a n d a m e n d e d o n D e c e m b e r 2 , 2 0 0 6 . (A p p . 2 3 .) B. C a se 4 -C C -2 4 8 2 a rise s o u t o f sta tem e n ts m a d e b yJo n e s to G e o rg e M c C a rd le (“M cC ard le”), a f

iel d su p erinten d en t atP en n V all eyC o n stru ctors, Inc . (“P en n V all ey ”), on D ece m ber5, 2006. Penn V al l eyw as the gene r al contr act orfora br ew erycons truct i on pr oj ectatSecond and ChestnutSt r eet s i n Phi l adel phi a. ( A pp. 228- 29. ) Penn V al l ey su b c o n tra c ted o u t all o f th e w o rk , an d a ll o f

th e su b c o n tra c to rs w o rk in g a t th e jo b site u sed u n ion labo r. (A p p . 2 2 9 . ) P en n V all eyalso su b co n tr ac ted w ith A m erican M il lw o rk C a b i n e try, I n c . ( “ A m e r i c a n M i l l w o r k ” ) , a n o n - u n i o n f i r m , t o m a n u f

a c tu r e th e c a b i n e tr y, b ar top s an d fro n ts, an d w all p an els fo r th e b rew ery . (A p p . 2 2 9 . ) A m erican M il lw o rkT h e U n io n f irst a ttem p ted to u n io n ize th e e m p lo y e e s o f A m e ric a n M ill w o rk in 2 l at e 2005, butw as uns ucce s s ful , purpor t edl ydue t o a pl antfi r e and otherfi nanci al d if f ic u ltie s a t A m e ri c a n M illw o rk . (A p p . 2 1 5 , 2 1 9 -2 2 .) 6 then s ubcontr act ed w i th P. A . Fl yC ontr act i ng, I nc. ( “PA Fl y ”) , a uni on fi r m , forthe d e liv e ry a n d in s ta lla tio n o f th o s e ite m s . (A p p . 2 1 2 -1 3 .) I n l at e 2006, a U ni on r epr es ent at i ve cont act ed G eor ge R ei t z ( “R ei t z”) , the ow ner of A m er i can M i l l w or k, t o fi nd outi f A m er i can M i l l w or k w as doi ng w or k atthe Penn V al l eypr oj ect . R ei t z expl ai ned A m er i can M i l l w or k w as onl ypr ovi di ng w oodw or k for the mi cr obr ew ery . ( A pp. 214. ) R ei t z w as as ked i f A m er i can M i l l w ork had a l abor agr eement , t o w hi ch R ei t z s ai d no. ( A pp. 214. ) T he U ni on r epr es ent at i ve al s o as ked 2 w ho w ou l d b e do i ng the inst al l at i on , and R ei t z provided a li stof p otent i al subco ntr act ors, a ll o f w h o m w e re u n io n iz e d . (A p p . 2 1 4 .) O n D ec em b er 5 , 2 0 0 6 , Jo n es c o n tacted R eit z, on b eh alf o f th e U n ion . (A p p . 2 1 5 . ) J ones acc us ed R ei t z of notpay i ng hi s w or ker s “fa i rw ages , ” and e xpl ai ned that“he w as goi ng t o i ns tructhi s carpent er s nott o unl oad anym i l l w or k, beca us e i tw as comi ng fr om an open s hop and he r epea t ed bys ay i ng that[no] m i l l w or k w as goi ng t o be unl oaded u n le s s it w a s f

ro m a u n io n .” (A p p . 2 1 5 .) L at erthatday , J ones appr oache d M cC ar dl e atPenn V al l ey ’ s w or k s i t e. ( A pp. 2 3 0 . ) A c c o r d i n g t o M c C a r d l e ’ s t e s t i m o n y, [J ones ] t o l d me th a t. . . h e a n d a n o th e rb u s i n e s s a g e n twho r e p r e s e n t s the C ab inet M ak ers, w ere in co n tact w ith G eo rge R eit z fro m A m erican M il lw o rk and thatG eor ge w as j erki ng them ar ound . . . . I s ai d, “W hatdo y ou m ean by7

‘je rk in g h im a ro u n d

–

jer k in g y o u a ro u n d ? ’” A n d h e sa id , “L e t m e p u t itth is w ay. . . I j us tw antt o gi ve y ou a heads up . . . and fr ankl yI s houl dn’ teven be s ay i ng thi s t o y ou buti f an a gr eementi s n’ tw or ked outbet w ee n A m er i can M i l l w or k and the U ni on the truck’ s notgett i ng unl oaded. ” A nd he s ai d–then he s ai d, “Let m e put i t thi s w ay , i f–m y m en ar e notgoi ng t o unl oad thattruck if s o m e th in g ’s n o t w o rk e d o u t b e tw e e n A m e ri c a n M illw o rk a n d th e U n io n .” T h e n h e a sk e d m e to c a ll G e o rg e R e itz an d se e if th e re w a s s o m e th in g I c o u ld d o a b o u t it . (A p p . 2 3 1 .) F oll ow i ng his con versat i on w i th Jon es, M cC ardl e did con t actR ei t z t o d i scuss A m e ric a n M ill w o rk ’s u p c o m in g d e liv e ry . (A p p . 2 3 1 .) P e n n V a lleyf iled a c h a rg e w ith th e B o a rd o n D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 6 . (A p p . 2 6 .) T h e d e liv e ryw a s o rig in a llysc h e d u led to tak e p lac e o n D e c e m b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 , b u t w a s d e layed o u t o f f e a r th a t U n io n p ick e tin g w o u ld hal tal l w or k atthe pr oj ects i t e. ( A pp. 231. ) T he compl ai ntw as fi l ed on D ece m ber26, 2006, al l egi ng thatJ ones ’ s conver s at i on w i th M cC ar dl e on D ece m ber5, 2006, cons t i tut ed u n la w f u l s e c o n d a ry a c tiv ity. (A p p . 2 6 .) T h e U n io n a n s w e re d o n D e c e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 . (A pp . 34 . ) O n Janu ary3, 20 07 , A m eri can M i l l w ork at t em pted del i veryof thei r pr od ucts , buttw o m en s t at i oned themsel ves out s i de the entr ance t o the br ew eryw i th pi ckets i gns stat ing , “A m erican M il lw o rk is u n fa irto loc al . . . C arp en ter’s C o u n cil . ” (A p p . 2 3 1 -32 . ) A s a r es ul t , al l ot herempl oy ees r efus ed t o cr os s the pi cketl i ne and the truck had t o l eave w ith o u t bein g u n load ed . (A p p . 2 3 3 . ) S u cc essf u l deliveryw as f

inallym ad e o n Jan u ary 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 , b u t o n ly af

te r A m e ri c a n M illw o rk th re a te n e d P A F ly w ith b re a c h o f c o n tr a c t. (A p p . 9 .) C.A compl et e di s cus s i on of the U ni on’ s ext ens i ve hi s t oryof vi ol at i ng the A ctcan 3 b e f o u n d a t Metro. R eg’lC ou ncil of C arpen t ers , 351 N . L . R . B . N o. 51, at*13- 17.

8 T he tw o cas es w er e cons ol i dat ed on J anuary29, 2007, and tr i ed bef or e A L J Paul B uxbaum on M ar ch 15, 2007. St r i ne, R i et z, and M cC ar dl e t es t i fi ed atthe tr i al . J ones w a s p re se n t at th e h e a rin g , b u t n e ith e r th e G e n e ra l C o u n se l, no r th e U n io n e lec ted to c a ll hi m as a w i tnes s . T he A L J i s s ued hi s deci s i on on J une 1, 2007, fi ndi ng thatJ ones th re a te n e d S tr in e a n d M c C a rd le in v io la tio n o f S e c tio n 8 (b )( 4 )( ii) (B ) o f th e A c t. See Metro. R eg’lC ou ncil

of C arpen t ers , 3 5 1 N. L. R. B. No. 5 1 , a t* 1 1 - 1 2 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . Th e ALJ then turned t o t he ques t i on of an a ppr opr i at e r emedyand exa m i ned the U ni on’ s ext ens i ve h i s t o ryo f

S e c t i o n 8 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( i i ) ( B) v i o l a t i o n s , s u mm a r i z e d b e l o w. 3 B etw een the s um m erof 1999, and J une, 2007, ther e w er e tw el ve compl ai nt s fi l ed agai ns tthe U ni on forvi ol at i ons of the A ctthatr es ul t ed i n or der s agai ns ti t . D ur i ng the su m m e r o f

1 9 9 9 , the U n io n u se d a so u n d a m p lific a tio n sy ste m a t ex c e ss iv e v o lu m e lev e ls atthe Soci etyH i l l T ow er s O w ner s ’ A s s oci at i on cons truct i on pr oj ectdes i gned t o for ce Soci etyH i l l t o cea s e doi ng bus i nes s w i th the Sm uckerC om pany . A l s o i n the s um m erof 1 9 9 9 , the U n io n e n g a g e d in sim ilar u n law f u l se c o n d a rya c tiv ityd ire c ted a t th e C a rlisle C ons truct i on C om panyand R i t t enhous e R egenc yA ffi l i at es . T he U ni on’ s obj ect i ve w as t o caus e thes e compani es t o cea s e doi ng bus i nes s w i th N yt ech, a fi r m per form i ng w i ndow re p lac e m e n t w o rk o n th e ir re sp e c tiv e p re m ise s. T h e U n io n ’s a g e n t ca lled th e p ro p e rty m anage rof the apa r t m entbui l di ng w arni ng that , “i f [they ] di dn' tus e hi s m en ther e, that9

he w oul d have 100 of

hi s m en s how up atthe j ob and ther e mi ghtbe tr oubl e. ” Metr o. R eg ’l C o u n c il o

f P h ila . & V

icin ity, U n itedB h d . o

f C a rp e n ter& J

o in e rs o f A m . ( So c iety Hill T o w e rs O w n e rs ’ A s s n .) , 3 3 5 N .L .R .B . 8 1 4 , 8 2 0 (2 0 0 1 ), enf or ced 50 Fed. A pp’ x 88 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). O n Sept ember14, 1999, the G ener al C ouns el i s s ued a c om pl ai nt , and on M ar ch 17, 2000, an A L J found thatthe U ni on’ s conductateac h w or k s i t e had vi ol at ed Sect i on 8 (b )( 4 )( ii) (B ) o f

th e A c t, a n d re c o m m e n d e d im p o s itio n o f a c e a s e -a n d -d e s is t o rd e r. Soci et y Hi l lTow ers O w ner ’s A s s n. , 3 3 5 N . L . R . B . at 82 9 (C ase 4 -C C -22 4 7 ). T h e B o ard i s s ued the or deron A ugus t27, 2001, and i tw as s ubs equent l yenfor ced bythi s C our ton O c to b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 2 . See Soc i et y Hi l lTow ers O w ner ’s A s s n. , 50 Fed. A pp’ x 88. I n J anuary , 2001, w hi l e thatl i t i gat i on w as cont i nui ng befor e the B oar d, the U ni on e n g a g e d in u n law f

u l se c o n d a rya c tiv ityd ire c ted a t A d a m s-B ick e l, by pic k e tin g a t a C om m er ce Bank j ob s i t e w her e A dams- B i ckel w as the gene r al contr act or . T he obj ectof th e U n io n ’s p ick e tin g w a s to f o rc e A d a m s-B ick e l to c e a se d o in g b u sin e ss w ith o n e o f its s u b c o n tr a c to rs , H i- T e c h In te ri o rs , L L C . (A p p . 8 7 -8 8 (C a s e 4 -C C -2 3 0 8 ).) B ar el ym or e than tw o m onths aft erthe B oar d i s s ued i t s deci s i on i n So c iety Hill Tow ers O w ners ’A s s oci at i on , on N ovember2, 2001, an age ntof the U ni on thr eat ened a g e n e ra l co n tra c to r, C u tler A ss o c iate s, In c ., th a t itw o u ld p ick e t th e c o m p a n y ’s jo b site w i th the object i ve o f fo rci ng C utl er t o cease d oing bu si ness w i th o ne o f i t s subcon tract ors, V isio n C o n tra c t F lo o rin g , In c . O n th e th re e d a y s im m e d iate lyf o llo w in g th isW e agr ee w i th t he A L J and the B oar d that , i n l i ghtof “the t ot al i tyof the 4 ci r cumst ance s ” ana l y s i s r equi r ed s etfor th i n F i ve StarManuf actur i ng, I

nc. , 3 4 8 N. L. R. B. N o . 9 4 , 1 3 0 1 (20 0 6 ), itis ap p rop ri ate to inc lud e this v iolati o n in ex am ining the U n ion ’s p ro c liv ity d e te rm in a tio n f o r v io la tin g th e A c t. See Metro. R eg’lC ou ncil of C arpen t ers , 351 N . L . R . B . N o. 51, atn. 25. 10 conver s at i on, the U ni on di d pi cketatthe j ob s i t e w i th the purpos e of thr eat eni ng, coer ci ng, and r es tr ai ni ng C ut l er , R & S E l ectr i c C om pany , and A dams- B i ckel . T he compl ai nti nvol vi ng the U ni on’ s conductatthe C ut l erj ob s i t e w as i s s ued on N ovember 2 1 , 2 0 0 1 . (A p p . 9 2 -9 4 (C a s e 4 -C C -2 3 4 1 -2 ).) J us tovers i x w eeks l at er , on J anuary7, 2002, the U ni on engage d i n r es tr ai ntand c o e rc io n o f

e m p lo y e e s o f

C h a rle s A . H ig g in s & S o n s, In c ., a n d M u sta n g E x p e d iter, a t a j ob s i t e i n B ens al em, Penns y l vani a. T hi s act i vi tyvi ol at ed of Sec t i on 8( b) ( 1) ( A ) of the A c t. (A p p . 8 9 -9 1 (C a s e 4 -C B -8 8 0 7 ).) 4 A m o n th a f

ter th e se e v e n ts, o n F e b ru a ry8 a n d 1 1 , 2 0 0 2 , the U n io n e n g a g e d in s e c o n d a ryp i c k e t i n g a ta j o b s i t e i n v o l v i n g th e r e n o v a t i o n o f a Un i t e d S t a t e s Ar my R eserve C enterw i th the object i ves of forci ng H arki ns & H arki ns M echan i cal S ervi ces, I nc. , t o cea s e doi ng bus i nes s w i th U SA E nvi r onm ent al M anage m ent , I nc. , and for ci ng U S A E n v ir o n m e n ta l to c e a s e d o in g b u s in e s s w ith B o n c o u e r C o n s tru c tio n C o m p a n y . A compl ai ntal l egi ng thi s m i s conductw as i s s ued February27, 2002. ( A pp. 101- 03 ( C as es 4 -C C -2 3 5 0 -1 a n d 4 -C C -2 3 5 0 -2 ).) A w eek a ft erthe i s s uance of thi s compl ai nt , on M ar ch 7, 2002, the U ni on engage d i n unl aw ful s econda r ypi cket i ng ata B ur gerK i ng r es t aur antw i th the obj ect i ve of f or ci ngT he s ett l ements t at ed thatthe U ni on “agr ees thatforthe purpos es of det erm i ni ng 5 the pr opers cope of

an or dert o be ent er ed aga i ns ti ti n anyfutur e pr ocee di ng befor e the B oar d ora C our ti n w hi ch the B oar d ori t s G ener al C ouns el i s a party , the B oar d O r der and C our tJ udgm enti s s ued pur s uantt o thi s St i pul at i on s hal l have the s ame for ce a nd eff ectas a l i t i gat ed adj udi cat i on of the B oar d enfor ced bya U . S. C our tthat ” the U ni on e n g a g e d in th e a lle g e d c o n d u c t. ( A p p . 7 6 .) 11 the B urger K i ng C orporat i on t o cease d oing bu si ness w i th A . E . M ann i ng , Inc. (C ase 4- C C - 2357, A pp. 95- 97. ) T he G ener al C ouns el i s s ued compl ai nt s agai ns tthe U ni on on M arch 14 , and M ay17 , 20 02 . (A pp . 89 -91 (C ase 4-C B -8807 ); A pp . 95 -97 (C ase 4 -C C -2 3 5 7 ).) T hen, on J ul y2 and 3, 2002, the U ni on engage d i n unl aw ful pi cket i ng ata bui l di ng r e n o v a t i o n p r o

j e c tl o c a t e d a tT e n th a n d Be r k s S tr e e t , b l o c k i n g i n g r e s s t o th a ts i t e . An o b jec t o f th is s e c o n d a rya c tiv ityw a s to f o rc e R o o se v e lt, In c ., d /b /a P h ilad e lp h ia M anage m entt o cea s e doi ng bus i nes s w i th D i amond C ontr actFl oor i ng. ( A pp. 98- 100 (C a s e s 4 -C B -8 8 8 6 a n d 4 -C C -2 3 6 6 ).) O n A u g u st 2 0 , 2 0 0 2 , the p a rties e n ter e d in to a se ttl e m e n t stip u latio n d e sig n e d to r es ol ve the af

or ement i oned al l egat i ons i n C as es 4- C C - 2308, 4- C C - 2341- 2, 4- C B - 8807, 4- C C - 2357, 4- C B - 8886, and 4- C B - 2366. I tpr ovi ded fori s s uance of narr ow cea s e- and- des i s tor der s and the pos t i ng of not i ces . ( A pp. 63- 86. ) O n A pr i l 8, 2004, t he 5 B o ard ap p rov ed the s ett lem en t st ipu lat ion an d issue d an ap p rop ri ate o rde r. (A p p . 4 9 -62 . ) O n S e p tem b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 , this C o u rt e n f o rc e d th e B o a rd ’s O rd e r. (A p p . 4 0 -4 8 ; N LR B v. Me tr o . R eg ’ lCo u n c i lo

f P h i la . & V

i c i n i t y , Un i t e d

B h d . o f Ca r p e n t e rs & J

o i n e rs o f A m. ,T h is s e ttle m e n t c o n ta in e d la n g u a g e id e n tic a l to th a t q u o te d in n o te 5 , supra . 6 (A p p . 1 2 1 .) 12 N o . 0 4 -2 7 9 5 (3 d C ir . S e p t. 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 ).) Fr om J ul y2002 thr ough Sept ember2004, the U ni on di d notengage i n s i m i l ar u n law f u l ac tiv iti e s. H o w e v e r, co m m e n c in g o n O c to b e r 1 , 2 0 0 4 , the U n io n e n g a g e d in “conf r ont at i onal conduct ” atthe Spr i ngs i de School , i ncl udi ng the mass i ng of demonstr at or s , ampl i fi cat i on of l oud m us i c, and aggr es s i ve handbi l l i ng. T he purpos e of th i s s e c o n d a r ya c t i v i tywas t o f o r c e th e Sp r i n g s i d e Sc h o o l t o c e a s e d o i n g b u s i n e s s wi th E. A l l en R eeve s , I nc. ( A pp. 126- 30 ( C as e 4- C C - 2429) . ) T he compl ai ntw as fi l ed M ar ch 7, 2005, and the part i es r es ol ved the ca s e byform al s ett l ements t i pul at i on on J ul y5, 2005, pr ovi di ng forthe entr yof a na r r ow cea s e- and- des i s tor derand the pos t i ng of a not i ce. 6 (A pp . 11 9-25) T he B oard i ssued a D eci si on and O rdereffectuat i ng the p art i es’ s ett l ementon J une 9, 2006. T hi s C our tenfor ced the or deron O ct ober31, 2006. ( A pp. 1 0 4 -1 0 ; N

LR B v. I nt ’ lB hd. O

f E l ec. W orker s , Local98 , N o. 06- 4271 ( 3d C i r . O ct . 31, 2 0 0 6 ).) O n J anuary17 and 20, 2006, appr oxi m at el ys i x m onths aft erent er i ng the S p rin g sid e S c h o o l se ttl e m e n t, th e U n io n e n g a g e d in p ick e tin g a t a jo b site o n K im b a ll St r eeti n Phi l adel phi a and a tan off i ce i n Si ckl ervi l l e, N ew J er s ey . A m ong the obj ect i ves of thi s act i vi tyw er e t o for ce Eas tC oas tC ons truct i on Ser vi ces C orpor at i on t o cea s e doi ng bu si ness w i th K eniko C on struct i on , Inc. , t o fo rce D C on struct i on t o cease d oing bu si nessT h is s e ttle m e n t a ls o c o n ta in e d la n g u a g e id e n tic a l to th a t q u o te d in n o te 5 , supra . 7 (A p p . 1 4 4 -4 5 .) 13 w i th R ayM aras heski, Jr . , t/ a M aras heski C on tract ors, and t o fo rce M aras heski t o cease d o ing b u sine ss w ith E ast C o ast C o n stru cti o n S erv ices. (A p p . 1 5 3 -60 (C ase 4 -C C -24 5 0 ). ) A compl ai ntcont ai ni ng thes e al l egat i ons w as fi l ed February16, 2006, and the part i es r es ol ved the ca s e byent er i ng i nt o a form al s ett l ements t i pul at i on on M ay11, 2006, pr ovi di ng fora narr ow cea s e- and- des i s tor derand the pos t i ng of a not i ce. ( A pp. 142- 7 50. ) T he B oar d appr oved the s ett l ementbyD eci s i on and O r derdat ed A ugus t1, 2006, ( A pp. 136- 41) , and thi s C our tenfor ced the or deron O ct ober31, 2006. ( A pp. 131- 35; N L R B v. Metro. R eg’lC ou ncil of C arpen t ers , N o . 0 6 -3 7 9 0 (3 d C ir . O c t. 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 ).) T h e A L J d eterm ined that a b roa d o rde r w as a p p rop ri ate d u e to th e U n ion ’s history of r epea t ed vi ol at i ons of Sect i on 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) , A dams- B i ckel ’ s i nvol vementi n tw o of the U ni on’ s pr evi ous vi ol at i ons , and the U ni on’ s hi s t oryof vi ol at i ng the A ctw hi l e the c h a rg e s f ro m a p re v io u s v io latio n w e re e ith e r still b e in g lit ig a ted o r su b jec t to a re c e n tly e n te re d e n f

o rc e m e n t o rd e r. Metro. R eg’lC ou ncil of C arpen t ers , 351 N . L . R . B . N o. 51, at *17- 18. O n O ct ober18, 2007, the B oar d adopt ed the A L J ’ s fi ndi ngs and re c o m m e n d a tio n s in f

u ll an d iss u e d th e b ro a d O rd e r. T h e O rd e r re q u ire d th e U n io n to cea s e and de s i s tfr om i t s act i vi tyagai ns tC PL P and PV C , as w el l as “I n anyotherm anner engag[ i ng] i n conductpr ohi bi t ed bySect i on 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) of the A ctthati s di r ect ed at n e u tr a l e m p lo y e rs ” w ith u n la w f u l s e c o n d a ry o b

je c tiv e s . Metr o. R eg’ lC ounci lof14

C arpen t ers , 3 5 1 N . L . R . B . N o . 5 1 (20 0 7 ). II. T hi s C our t ’ s r evi ew of B oar d or der s i s “hi ghl ydefe r ent i al . ” T ri m m A ssoci ates , I n c . v . NLRB , 351 F. 3d 99, 102 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e “a cce ptthe B oar d’ s fac tual d eterm ination an d rea so n ab le i n fe ren ce s d erive d fro m [th o se] d eterm ination s if theyare s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” Al l eg h e ny Lu d l u m C o r p . v . NLRB , 301 F. 3d 167, 175 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . “Subs t ant i al evi dence i s m or e than a mer e s ci nt i l l a. I tm eans s uch re lev a n t ev id e n c e a s a re a so n a b le m in d m ig h t ac c e p t as a d e q u a te to su p p o rt a concl us i on. ” I

d. at181 ( quot i ng Ci t iz e n s Pu b l ' g& Pr i n t i n gCo. v . NLRB , 263 F. 3d 224, 232 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “The B oar d’ s concl us i ons of l aw ar e ent i t l ed t o r es pecti f bas ed upon a r eas onabl ydefe ns i bl e cons truct i on of the A ct . ” N LR B v. Local54, H

ot el E m pl oyee s & Res taur antE m pl oyee s I nt ’ lU ni on , 887 F. 2d 28, 3 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). S e c tio n 8 (b )(4 )(ii)(B ) o f th e A c t m a k e s it u n law f u l f o r a u n io n o r its a g e n t “to thr eat en, coer ce, orr es tr ai n” a pe r s on w i th the obj ect i ve of “ for ci ng orr equi r i ng any p e rso n to c e a se u sin g , se lli n g , h a n d lin g tra n sp o rtin g , o r o th e rw ise d e a lin g in th e p ro d u c ts of anyotherpr oducer , pr oces s or , orm anufa ctur er , ort o cea s e doi ng bus i nes s w i th any otherper s on orfor ci ng orr equi r i ng anyotherempl oy ert o r ecogni ze orbar gai n w i th a [uni on] . ” 29 U . S. C . § 158( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) . “The t w o pr er equi s i t es forthe fi ndi ng of an 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) vi ol at i on ar e: ( 1) thata l aboror gani zat i on ‘ thr eat en, coer ce orr es tr ai n any15

per s on’ ; and ( 2) thatan obj ectof thi s conductbe t o for ce one per s on t o cea s e doi ng bus i nes s w i th anotherper s on. ” Sheet MetalW orker s Local27 , 321 N . L . R . B . 540, 547 (19 9 6 ). A. T he U ni on ar gues thatthe B oar d’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe conve r s at i on betw een St r i ne and J ones vi ol at ed Sect i on 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) w as nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . B utthe U ni on does notcont es tthatJ ones m ade the comm ent s thatSt r i ne all eg es, or c h all en g e a n yo f h is t esti m o n y . R athe r, the U n ion claim s tha t Jon es’s s t at ement s w er e notactual l ythr eat s , and eve n i f theyw er e, theyw er e notthr eat s bythe U ni on. W e di s agr ee. Jones st at ed thathe, as a r epresent at i ve o f t he U nion, had a problem w i th A dam sB i ckel ’ s us e of “ unfai rcontr act or s ” ( A pp. 183- 84) , and that“[i ] f that ’ s the w ayi t ’ s goi ng t o go the bui l di ng i s goi ng t o have a pr obl em. ” ( A pp. 185. ) J ones even c l ar i fi ed that“a p rob lem ” m ea n t “[p ]rotests, w o rk sto p p ag es a n d p rob lem s w ith d eli v eries.” (A p p . 1 8 5 . ) F urtherm ore, Jones sug gest ed the w ayt o av oid these “p robl em s” w as for Str i ne, as a p rin c ip le o f

C P L P , “to u se so m e o f [ h is] ju ice to c o n v in c e A d a m s-B ick e l to u se f a ir contr act or s . ” ( A pp. 187. ) T he B oar d adopt ed the A L J ’ s concl us i on that“J ones ’ [s i c] w arni ng of p rot est s and d el i veryi nterrupt i on s, cou pled w i th h i s dem and that St ri ne u se his i nfluence ag ai nstthe o ffen ding con tract or hi red bythe co nd om i nium ow ners, cons t i tut ed a bl at antexampl e of r es tr ai ntand coe r ci on of a ne utr al partyi n a l aborT he U ni on ar gues thatJ ones w as notactual l ythr eat eni ng U ni on act i on, but 8 m ere lyco n v ey ing the c o n ce rns o f o ther u n ion s w o rkin g o n the C P L P p rojec t. H o w ev er, J ones ’ s s t at ementthatthe i s s ues he w as cal l i ng about“w entbey ond pr obl ems w i th the C a rp e n ter s U n io n ” (A p p . 1 8 5 ) c lea rlyin d ica tes th a t th e U n io n d id h a v e a p ro b lem w ith A d am s-B icke l. T h ere w as c ertainlysu b stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe A L J’s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f

th e e v i d e n c e b e f

o r e h i m. T he U ni on al s o ar gues thatthe G ener al C ouns el coul d notm eeti t s bur den of pr oof w i thoutcal l i ng J ones as a w i tnes s and thatno adver s e i nfer ence s houl d be dr aw n byt he A L J fro m h is fail u re to testi fy . T h ere w as a m p le ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe B o ard ’s c o n c lu sio n w ith o u t Jo n e s’s tes tim o n y . M o re o v e r, th e A L J m e re lyn o ted Jo n e s’s f a ilu re to te s tif y , a n d d id n o t e x p re s s ly d ra w a n a d v e rs e in f e re n c e . Metr o. R eg’ lC ounci lof C arpen t ers , 3 5 1 N .L .R .B . N o . 5 1 , at n .6 . B u t, “it is se ttl e d ‘th a t w h e n a p a rtyf a ils to c a ll a w i tnes s w ho m ayr eas onabl ybe as s um ed t o be fa vor abl ydi s pos ed t o the party , an a d v e rse in f

e re n c e m a yb e d ra w n re g a rd in g a n yf a c tu a l q u e stio n o n w h ich th e w itn e ss is l i kel yt o have know l edge. ” D ai ki chiC or p. , 3 3 5 N .L .R .B . 6 2 2 (2 0 0 1 ), enf or ced. 56 Fed. A pp’ x 516 ( D . C . C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng Int ’l A utom ated M

ach s. , 285 N . L . R . B . 1122, 1123 (1 9 8 7 ), e n

f o r c e d . me m. 861 F. 2d 720 ( 6th C i r . 1988) ) . T her efor e, even i f the A L J dr ew an adve r s e i nfer ence fr om J ones ’ s fai l ur e t o t es t i fy , the i nfer ence w as j us t i fi ed. 16 d ispu te. ” (A p p . 1 0 . ) A s the A L J co rrectl yn o ted, th is i s n o t a ca se w h ere there w ere m er el yvague r efe r ence s t o “pr obl ems” or“tr oubl e, ” butr atheran expl i ci ts t at ementt hat “[p] r ot es t s , w or k s t oppages and pr obl ems w i th del i ver i es ” w er e l i kel yi f C PL P di d not act . A s s uch, ther e i s cert ai nl ys ubs t ant i al evi dence thata thr eatw as m ade. 8 T he U ni on al s o ar gues thatther e w as nots ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tfi ndi ng the U ni on i nt ended a n unl aw ful s econda ryobj ect i ve. T he A L J found that“i ti s appar ent f ro m th e w o rd s c h o se n th a t Jo n e s’ [ sic ] o b jec tiv e w a s to f

o rc e C P L P to a p p lyp re ss u re to th e c o n d o m in iu m o w n e rs to c e a se u sin g A d a m s-B ick e l o r o th e r ‘u n f a ir’ c o n tra c to rs to per form cons truct i on w or k on the C hes tnutSt r eetpr oj ect . ” Metr o. R eg’ lC ounci lof C arpen t ers , 3 5 1 N . L . R . B . N o . 5 1 , * 9 . D e s p i t e th e U n i o n ’ s i n s i s t e n c e t o th e c o n tr a ry,17

Jo n e s m a d e it v e ryc lea r th a t h e w a n ted S trin e p re ss u re A d a m s-B ick e l to u se “ f a ir contr act or s , ” and i f he f ai l ed t o do s o, then ther e w oul d be the “pr obl ems” di s cus s ed a b o v e . W h ile th e U n io n a rg u e s th a t Jo n e s n e v e r to ld S trin e th a t A d a m s-B ick e l n e e d e d to be r emoved fr om the j ob s i t e, the Supr eme C our thas hel d thata l i t er al r eadi ng of the “ce as e doi ng bus i nes s ” r equi r ementi s t oo narr ow , and “w oul d i gnor e the or i gi nal congr es s i onal conce r n. ” N L R B v. L oca l82 5, Int ’l

U nion of O perati ngE ng ’r

s , 40 0 U. S. 297, ( 1971) . A s ki ng St r i ne t o us e hi s “j ui ce” i s the type of c onduct w hich i n eff

ectrequi res a neu tral t o alt er orm od i fyi t s exi st i ng bu si ness rel at i on shi p w i th the pri m aryem ploy er, al tho ug h argua blyrequi ri ng l ess than a t ot al canc el l at i on of the bus i nes s r el at i ons hi p, [and] i s enough di s rupt i on of an e xi s t i ng bus i nes s r el at i ons hi p t o cons t i tut e a “ cea s e doi ng b u sin e ss ” o b

jec t w ith in th e m e a n in g o f S e c tio n 8 (b )(4 )(B ) o f

th e A c t. L oca lN o. 44 1, Int ’l

B hd . of Elec. W

orkers , 2 2 2 N .L .R .B . 9 9 , 1 0 0 (1 9 7 6 ), enf or ced 569 F . 2 d 1 6 0 (D . C . C ir . 1 9 7 7 ). T he conve r s at i on w i th St r i ne ca n bes tbe cha r act er i zed a s a pr ogr es s i on fr om v ag u e re fe ren ce s to the U n ion ’s fru str ati o n w ith A d am s-B icke l, to a th rea t of w o rk s to p p a g e s a n d a “ re q u e s t” th a t S tr in e p re s s u re A d a m s -B ic k e l to u s e u n io n e m p lo y e e s . T hi s i s pr eci s el ythe type of c onductthat“cons t i tut es a del i ber at e ent angl ementof a neutr al per s on i n a di s put e nothi s ow n and i s vi ol at i ve of the s econda ryboy cottpr ovi s i on of the A ct . ” LocalN

o. 441, Int ’l

B hd . of Elec. W

orkers , 222 N . L . R . B . at101. G i ven the u n ref u ted testi m o n yab o u t th at co n v ersa ti o n , there ca n b e n o q u esti o n that the B o ard ’s fi ndi ng thatSect i on 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence .18 B. T h e U n io n a rg u e s th a t th e c o n v e rsa tio n b e tw e e n Jo n e s a n d M c C a rd le w a s m e re ly t o i nform M cC ar dl e of the conf l i ctw i th A m er i can M i l l w or k, and thatther e w oul d be a pi cketl i ne and w or k s t oppages i f a de al coul d notbe r eac hed. J ones t ol d M cC ar dl e that “if a n ag ree m en t i sn ’tw o rke d o u t betw ee n A m erican M il lw o rk a n d the U n ion the truc k ’s notgett i ng unl oaded. . . . [M ] ym en ar e notgoi ng t o unl oad thattruck i f s om ethi ng’ s not w or ked outbetw een A m er i can M i l l w or k and the U ni on. ” ( A pp. 230- 31. ) H e then as ked M cC ar dl e t o cal l R ei t z and “ s ee i f ther e w as s om ethi ng [M cC ar dl e] coul d do abouti t . ” (A p p . 2 3 1 .) T h e A L J a n d th e B o a rd d e ter m in e d th a t th e se sta tem e n ts “ c lea rly e sta b lish e [ d ] th a t th e U n io n ’s a g e n t th re a ten e d to p re v e n t th e d e liv e ryo f m ill w o rk to P e n n V a lley ’s p rojec t an d d e m a n d e d th a t P e n n V a lleyin ter c e d e w ith its su b c o n tra c to r to r es ol ve [the U ni on] ’ s i s s ues . ” Metro. R eg’lC ou ncil of C arpen t ers , 351 N . L . R . B . N o. 51, at*10. H ow ever , the U ni on as s ert s thatther e w as no vi ol at i on and thatthe conve r s at i on w as m er el ya pr edi ct i on of w hatw oul d happen i f a “ val i d pi cketl i ne w as es t abl i s hed. ” (U n io n B r. 2 2 .) T he U ni on’ s ar gum enthi nges on i t s as s ert i on thati thad a r i ghtt o pi cketw hen n o n -u n io n lab o r w a s b e in g e m p lo y e d , an d th a t th e re f o re a n ya c tio n a ss o c iate d w ith v a lid pi cket i ng does notvi ol at e the A ct . H ow ever , “pi cket i ng fora l aw ful obj ectm aybe unl aw ful i f ther e i s ot herevi dence es t abl i s hi ng thatthe pi cket i ng al s o has an unl aw ful s econda ryobj ect . ” L oca lN o. 44 1, Int ’l

B hd . of Elec. W

orkers , 2 2 2 N .L .R .B . a t 1 0 0 .19

“ [ T ]h e A c t m a k e s c lea r, a th re a t to sh u t d o w n a g e n e ra l co n tra c to r’s jo b in o rd e r to pr es s ur e a s ubcontr act ort o s i gn an agr eementw i th a uni on cover i ng the unce r t i fi ed empl oy ees of the s ubcontr act ori s i m pr opers econda ryconductpr ohi bi t ed bythe A ct . ” O p e r a tin gE n g ’rs U

n io n L o c a l N

o . 3 , 340 N . L . R . B . 1053, 1056 ( 2003) ( ci t i ng Local825 , 400 U . S. at304) . I n t hi s cas e, the U ni on has conce ded that“J ones w as try i ng t o put pr es s ur e on [Penn V al l ey ] t o geti nvol ved i n the di s put e and ha ve [A m er i can M i l l w or k] s ign an agr eem ent . ” (U n ion B r. 2 4 n . 1 8 . ) H o w ev er, en li sti n g a n eu tr al em p loy er to e x ert pr es s ur e on the off

endi ng pr i m aryempl oy ert o negot i at e w i th the U ni on i s pr eci s el yt he cont extw hi ch, “cons t i tut es a del i ber at e ent angl ementof a ne utr al per s on i n a di s put e not hi s ow n and i s vi ol at i ve of the s econda ryboy cottpr ovi s i on of the A ct . ” LocalN o. 441, Int ’l B hd . of Elec. W

orkers , 222 N . L . R . B . at101. E ven w i thoutthe U ni on’ s conce s s i on, the A L J ’ s exami nat i on of the U ni on’ s hi s t oryw i th A m er i can M i l l w or k m akes cl earthat the J ones w as as ki ng M cC ar dl e t o pr es s ur e A m er i can M i l l w or k i nt o negot i at i ng w i th the U ni on. A s s uch, the B oar d’ s fi ndi ng thatthe U ni on thr eat ened Penn V al l eyw i th an u n law f u l se c o n d a ryo b

jec tiv e , the re b yv io latin g S e c tio n 8 (b )(4 )(ii)(B ) o f th e A c t, i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . III . A. T he U ni on ar gues thatthe r ecor d does nots uppor tthe B oar d’ s i s s uance of a br oad or der . Sect i on 10( c) of the A ct , 29 U . S. C . § 160( c) , ves t s the N L R B w i th “br oad20

d isc re tio n to d e v ise re m e d ies th a t ef f e c tu a te th e p o licie s o f

th e A c t, su b

jec t o n lyto lim ite d ju d ic ia l r e v ie w .” S u r e - Ta n , I n c . v . NLRB , 4 6 7 U . S . 8 8 3 , 8 9 8 - 9 9 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . We

“ sh o u ld n o t su b stitu te [ o u r] ju d g m e n t f o r th a t o f th e N L R B in d e ter m in in g h o w b e st to undo the ef

fec t s of unfa i rl aborpr act i ces . ” I d. at899. “The N L R B ’ s choi ce of a r emedy m u st b e g iv e n ‘sp e c ial re sp e c t b yre v iew in g c o u rts,’ a n d m u st n o t b e d istu rb e d ‘u n les s it can be s how n t hatthe or deri s a pat entatt empt t o achi eve e nds otherthan thos e w hi ch ca n fai r l ybe s ai d t o eff

ectuat e the pol i ci es of the A ct . ’ ” Qui c k v . NLRB , 245 F. 3d 231, 254 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng N LR B v. G is s el

P acki ng C o. , 395 U . S. 575, 613 n. 32 ( 1969) and Fi b r e b o a r d

Pa p e rPr o d u c t

s Cor p . v . NLRB , 3 7 9 U . S . 2 0 3 , 2 1 6 (19 6 4 )). A br oad or deri s perm i s s i bl e w hen the enj oi ned vi ol at i ons “bea rs om e r es embl ance to th a t w h ich th e [ p a rty ] h a s c o m m itt e d o r th a t d a n g e r o f th e ir c o m m iss io n in th e f u tu re is t o be ant i ci pat ed fr om the cour s e of [ i t s ] conducti n the pas t . ” N L R B v. E xp ress P b l’

g C o. , 3 1 2 U . S . 4 2 6 , 4 3 6 (19 4 1 ). T h e B o ard h as a d o p ted th e p o sit ion that a b roa d o rde r is w a rra n ted o n lyw h e n a re sp o n d e n t is sh o w n to h a v e a p ro c liv ityto v io late th e A c t o r h a s e n g a g e d in su c h e g re g io u s o r w id e sp re a d m isc o n d u c t as to d em o n str ate a g en era l disrega rd f o r th e e m p loy ee s’ fu n d am en tal statu tory r i ght s . A ccor di ngl y , eac h cas e w i l l be ana l y zed t o det erm i ne the natur e and ext entof the vi ol at i ons comm i t t ed bya r es pondents o thatthe B oar d m ay tai lor an ap p rop ri ate o rde r. Hi ckm ot tFoods , I

nc. , 2 4 2 N . L . R . B . 1 3 5 7 , 1 3 5 7 (19 7 9 ). B. D e sp ite its e x ten siv e h isto ryo f S e c tio n 8 (b )(4 )(ii)(B ) v io latio n s, th e U n io n still c o n ten d s th a t a b ro a d o rd e r is n o t ap p ro p ria te b e c a u se its p a st a c tiv iti e s w e re n o t “w e ll-21

s ett l ed” vi ol at i ons of the A ctand ca nnotcons t i tut e “a n att i tude of oppos i t i on t o the purpos es of the A ct . ” F i ve StarM f g. , I nc. , 348 N . L . R . B . at1301. T he U ni on s t at es t hat “[v] i ew i ng the ‘ t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s ’ of thi s cas e, i ti s cl earthat[the U ni on] i s an ag g ressive an d cre ati v e u n ion att em p ti n g to f lex its co ll ec ti v e m u scle in a n ev err es tr i ct i ve envi r onm ent . ” ( U ni on B r . at27. ) H ow ever , the B oar d ar gues thata br oad or derw as nece s s aryi n t hi s i ns t ance pr eci s el ybeca us e the pas tconductof the U ni on has i ndi cat ed thati tw i l l l i kel ycont i nue t o pus h the boundar i es and fi nd y etundi s cover ed w a y s to v io la te S e c tio n 8 (b )( 4 )( ii) (B ). S e e I n t ’ lBh d . o

f El e c . Worke rs v . NLRB , 34 1 U. S. 694, 706 ( 1951) ( “W hen the purpos e t o r es tr ai n tr ade appear s fr om a cl earvi ol at i on of l aw , i ti s notnece s s arythatal l of the untr avel ed r oads t o thatend be l eftopen and that onl ythe w orn one be c l os ed. ”) . W e agr ee. C. T he U nion ci t es E l ectr i cal W orker s Local98 (

The Tel ephone M

an) , a c a se in w hi ch the el ectr i cal w or ker s ’ uni on had t ar get ed “10 s epar at e neutr al empl oy er s i n a 19- m o n th p e rio d . . . d e m o n stra t[ in g th e u n io n ’s] p ro c liv ityf o r v io latin g th e A c t an d its gener al di s r egar d forthe funda m ent al r i ght s of empl oy ees and neutr al empl oy er s . ” 327 N . L . R . B . 59 3, 60 2 (199 9). T he U nion argues t hat because i t s cond uct i n the i nst ant cas e w as notas egr egi ous as the el ectr i cal w or ker ’ s uni on i n The Tel ephone M an , a br oad or deri s notj us t i fi ed. H ow ever , eac h cas e mustbe ana l y zed on i t s ow n fac t s . T he U ni on has a l ongE l even of the compl ai nt s i nvol ved vi ol at i ons of Sect i on 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) , and one 9 in v o lv e d a v io la tio n o f

S e c tio n 8 (b )( 1 )( A ). See n o te s 3 a n d 4 , supra . See Metro. R eg’lC ou ncil of C arpen t ers , 3 5 1 N .L .R .B . N o . 5 1 , at n .2 7 (listin g a ll 10 the e m p loy ers a ff

ec ted b ythe U n ion ’s un law fu l con d u ct i n that ti m e p eriod ). 22 hi s t oryof vi ol at i ng Sect i on 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) of the A ct . B etw een 1999 a nd 2006 tw el ve com plai nts hav e been fi l ed resul t i ng i n o rder s enfo rced bythis C ou rt , affecti ng atl east

9 tw enty - fi ve pr i m aryand s econda r yempl oy er s i n the gr eat erPhi l adel phi a ar ea. 10 A ddi t i onal l y , s ever al of the U ni on’ s vi ol at i ons occurr ed w hi l e l i t i gat i ng compl ai nt s of p rio r v io latio n s o r sh o rtlya f ter th is C o u rt h a d e n f

o rc e d th e B o a rd ’s o rd e rs r e latin g to pr i orvi ol at i ons . I n t he i ns t antcas e, J ones t el ephoned Str i ne dur i ng the pende ncyof a c o m p lain t f

iled in F e b ru a ry , 2 0 0 6 , (C a se 4 -C C -2 4 5 0 ), an d th e th re a ts m a d e to M c C a rd le w ere m ad e d u ri n g the p en d en cyo f th e C P L P ca se, on lyfiv e w ee k s af ter th is C o u rt e n ter e d tw o se p a ra te ju d g m e n ts e n f o rc in g o rd e rs a g a in st th e U n io n . T h is c o n d u c t cle a rly co n sti tutes su b stan ti al ev iden ce o f th e n ee d fo r a b roa d o rde r. A l s o not ew or thyi s thattw o of the compl ai nt s i n 2001, cas es 4- C C - 2308 and 4- C C - 2341- 2, i nvol ved ef for t s bythe U ni on t o pr es s ur e A dams- B i ckel , one of the cha r gi ng part i es i n the case befo re us. P l ai nly , the n arr ow cease and desi storders enter ed in tho se c a s e s h a v e b e e n i n e f

f e c t i v e i n p r e v e n t i n g th e Un i o n f r o m l a t e rt a r g e t i n g th a ts a me c o m p a n y. D. T he U ni on cl ai m s anycons i der at i on of m i s conductw hi ch occ urr ed more than four23

y ear s pr i ori s i m pr operw hen fa s hi oni ng a r emedy , and ther efor e onl ythr ee of i t s pr evi ous v i o l a t i o n s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r e d . Th e Uni o n c i t e s a n e a r l i e rd e c i s i o n o f ALJ B u x b au m w h ere h e stated , “[ w ]hil e ith as n o t art iculated a p rec ise t im e li m it , the B o ard ap p ea rs t o d raw the a p p rop ri ate d em arc ati o n at th e p assa g e o f a p p rox im ately4 y ea rs w i thoutevi dence of m i s conduct . ” I nt ’ lB hd. of

E l ec. W orker s , Local98 (

Tri - M G r oup) , 350 N . L . R . B . 1104 ( 2006) . H ow ever , the B oar d expr es s l ydecl i ned t o r ecogni ze a nys uch rig id tim e lim itatio n . In ste a d , the B o a rd e x p lain e d th a t th e p ro p rie tyo f a b ro a d o rd e r is bas ed on an a s s es s m entof the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s i ncl udi ng the pr oxi m i tyor r emot enes s of the dat es of pr i orunfai rl aborpr act i ces and r el at ed admi ni s tr at i ve and ju d ic ia l o rd e rs . I

d. atn. 2. I V. F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e f

ind that su b stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the B o ard ’s d e t e r mi n a t i o n th a tth e Un i o n v i o l a t e d S e c t i o n 8 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( i i ) ( B) o f th e Ac t . Na rr o wl yd r a wn or der s have pl ai nl yfai l ed t o det erthe U ni on’ s cont i nued vi ol at i ons of Sect i on 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) . T he br oad or deri n t hi s cas e di r ect ed the U ni on t o cea s e and de s i s tfr om “i n anyotherm annerengag[ i ng] i n conductpr ohi bi t ed bySect i on 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) of the A ct . ” Metro. R eg’lC ou ncil of C arpen t ers , 3 5 1 N .L .R .B . N o . 5 1 . T h is is a n a p p ro p ria te r emedy“t o eff

ectuat e the pol i ci es of the A ct . ” Q ui ck , 245 F. 3d at254. T he ac t i ons enj oi ned mostdefi ni t el y“bea rs om e r es embl ance t o thatw hi ch the [pa r ty ] has comm i t t ed orthatdangerof thei rcomm i s s i on i n the futur e i s t o be ant i ci pat ed fr om the cour s e of24

[i t s ] conducti n t he pas t . ” E xpr es s P bl ’

g C o. , 312 U . S. at436. T he B oar d’ s appl i cat i on forenfor cementof i t s or derw i l l be gr ant ed.