and Submitted February 15, 2019 San Francisco, California
Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board LRB No. 21-CC-183510
P. Lauro (argued), Attorney; Elizabeth A. Heaney, Supervisory
Attorney; Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel;
John W. Kyle, Deputy General Counsel; Peter B. Robb, General
Counsel; National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.;
A. Rosenfeld (argued), Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld,
Alameda, California, for Respondent.
Before: Mary M. Schroeder and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit
Judges, and Robert S. Lasnik, [*] District Judge.
panel granted the National Labor Relations Board's
petition for enforcement of its order entered against
International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental
and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 229, enjoining Local 229
from committing violations of the National Labor Relations
Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding
that Local 229 had violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the NLRA
by inducing or encouraging Commercial Metals Company's
neutral employees to strike or stop work for the unlawful
secondary purpose of furthering Local 229's primary labor
dispute with Western Concrete Pumping.
panel rejected Local 229's contention that the
Board's application of the NLRA to its conduct punished
expressive activity protected by the First Amendment.
Specifically, the panel refused to extend the Supreme
Court's decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135
S.Ct. 2218 (2015), and refused to apply strict scrutiny to
the analysis of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B). The panel explained
that Reed involved content-based restrictions in a
municipal ordinance regulating signs directed toward the
general public, whereas this case involved communications
addressed to neutral employees within the tightly regulated
contours of labor negotiations.
panel held that the Board reasonably rejected Local 229's
contention that Section 8(c) of the NLRA protected its
communications because the Supreme Court has concluded that
Section 8(c) does not immunize activities that violate
panel held that the Board properly rejected the challenges
asserted by Local 229 under the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act and under the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States
the panel held that the language of the Board's order
adequately apprised Local 229 of its notice obligations.