## Facts

- A union had primary labor disputes with several nonunion construction contractors alleged to pay wages and benefits below area standards.
- To pressure the primary contractors, the union displayed large stationary banners near the premises of neutral employers that did business with those contractors.
- At multiple neutral locations, union agents stood on public sidewalks holding banners roughly 3–4 feet high and 15–20 feet long.
- The banners included messages such as “SHAME ON [neutral employer]” and “DON’T EAT ‘RA’ SUSHI,” and also stated “Labor Dispute.”
- The banner holders remained stationary, did not patrol, and did not block or impede ingress or egress.
- There was no chanting, shouting, or confrontational conduct; the activity was directed largely at the public and passing motorists.
- Supporters sometimes distributed flyers explaining the dispute was with the primary contractors and stating the union was not asking neutral employees to stop work or suppliers to stop deliveries.
- Neutral employers filed unfair labor practice charges alleging the bannering violated NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) as unlawful secondary boycott conduct.
- An ALJ found a violation; a three-member Board majority reversed and dismissed the complaints, with two members dissenting.

## Issues

1. Whether stationary display of large banners near neutral employers’ premises constitutes “picketing” prohibited by NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
2. Whether the bannering, even if not picketing, “threaten[s], coerce[s], or restrain[s]” a neutral employer within the meaning of § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
3. Whether the bannering constitutes unlawful “signal picketing” or other coercive nonpicketing conduct aimed at inducing others to cease doing business with the neutral employers.

## Decision

- The Board majority dismissed the complaints and held the union did not violate § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
- The majority found the stationary bannering was not “picketing” because it lacked patrolling and the confrontational character associated with picketing at entrances.
- The majority held the conduct did not “threaten, coerce, or restrain” the neutrals where it was peaceful, nonobstructive, and did not disrupt operations.
- The majority rejected the “signal picketing” theory, emphasizing the absence of patrolling and the flyers’ statements that the union was not urging neutral employees or suppliers to withhold services.
- Two members dissented, viewing the bannering as the functional equivalent of secondary picketing intended to pressure neutrals through public on-site appeals.

## Legal Principles

- Under NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), a union violates the Act only if it “threaten[s], coerce[s], or restrain[s]” a person, with an object of forcing cessation of business with another.
- “Picketing” for § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) generally involves patrolling or comparable conduct that creates a physical or symbolic confrontation with persons entering or leaving a site.
- Peaceful, stationary display of a banner on public property, without patrolling, blocking access, or disruptive conduct, is not treated as picketing for § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) purposes.
- Absent obstruction, intimidation, or disruption of a neutral’s operations, public-facing appeals are more likely characterized as protected persuasive expression rather than statutory coercion.
- “Signal picketing” requires conduct reasonably understood as calling for employees or suppliers to withhold services; stationary bannering accompanied by disclaimers may fall outside that category.

## Conclusion

The Board held that peaceful, stationary bannering near neutral employers—without patrolling, obstruction, or confrontational conduct—was neither unlawful secondary picketing nor coercion under NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), and it dismissed the unfair labor practice complaints.


Carpenters Loc. No. 1506 (Eliason & Knuth of Ariz., Inc.), 355 N.L.R.B. 797 (2010)