The Board found that the union’s display of stationary banners did not violate the Act’s provisions making it unfair labor practices for unions or their agents either “to threaten, coerce, or restrain” persons or industries engaged in commerce or “to induce and encourage” their employees to cease work, with an object of “forcing or requiring any person to cease doing business with any person.”  The Board majority (Chairman Liebman and Members Becker and Pearce) relied on its decision in Carpenters Local No. 1506 (Eliason & Knuth of Arizona, Inc.), 355 NLRB No. 159 (August 27, 2010) that found that similar banner displays did not “threaten, coerce or restrain.”

The Board majority went on to dismiss the allegation that the banner displays did not “induce or encourage” employees to cease work, finding that the union’s conduct did not constitute either picketing or otherwise signal to employees to cease work.  Member Hayes dissented, reiterating the view stated in his joint dissent with former Member Schaumber in Eliason & Knuth that the display of banners was unlawful as coercive conduct.  He also argued that the banner displays induced and encouraged employees to cease work both as picketing and as conduct that could reasonably be understood by the employees as a signal or request to engage in a work stoppage against their employer.

Charges filed by New Star General Contractors, Inc., East-West Partners-Denver, Inc., Terry Staples, and Oakland Construction Co., Inc.  Administrative Law Judge Gregory Z. Meyerson issued his decision November 12, 2004.  Chairman Liebman and Members Becker, Pearce, and Hayes participated.