ABC Sept. 7 criticized a
Sept. 2 ruling by the Democrat-appointed majority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on the practice of union “bannering” at secondary employers’ business sites. In consolidated cases known as United Brotherhood of Carpenters Local No. 1506 (Aug. 27, 2010), the NLRB determined in a 3-2 split decision that bannering is protected speech under federal labor law.
Bannering, or the display of large signs often containing misleading claims at sites belonging to neutral parties or secondary employers, is a tactic used by unions across the country to threaten or coerce these firms into hiring unionized contractors. Although a provision in the National Labor Relations Act prohibits unions from engaging in other activities that could be considered coercive or threatening to a neutral employer, such as picketing, the NLRB decision exempts bannering from the provision.
“The NLRB failed to apply longstanding laws against secondary union activity that are supposed to prohibit confrontational union conduct aimed at neutral parties,” said 2010 ABC National Chairman Jim Elmer, founder and president of James W. Elmer Construction Co., Spokane, Wash. “The board’s action ignores the reality of the construction workplace and will no doubt embolden and encourage more unions to incorporate this practice into aggressive and irresponsible ‘corporate campaigns.’”
In response to the decision, Elmer also pointed out that unions have been steadily losing members over the years and today only represent about 15 percent of the construction workforce.
“As ABC’s members know all too well, bannering is a desperate attempt to regain market share by unfairly targeting nonunion construction companies, regardless of the wishes of their employees, and seeking to drive these firms out of certain markets by coercing their neutral customers,” Elmer said.
“At this time of economic challenges, it is unfortunate that the new pro-union appointees to the NLRB have chosen to turn the clock back 60 years, to a time when secondary boycotts threatened to paralyze the industry and stifle job growth,” Elmer said.
The two dissenting members of the NLRB , Peter Schaumber and Brian Hayes, argued that the decision is alarming because it creates a new standard that could exempt other types of activity and warned that it could lead to an increase in secondary boycott actions.