Cluster 366370

Id. at 1160 (emphasis added).

In context, however, the "neutrals" were not just any members of the public but " employees of neutral employers." Id. at 1160 (emphasis added).

Id. (quoting Int’l Ass’n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local No. 138 v. N.L.R.B., 598 F.2d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir.1979) (citations omitted)).

International Ass’n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 433 v. N.L.R.B., 598 F.2d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir.1979).

International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 433 v. N.L.R.B., 598 F.2d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir.1979).

International Ass’n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local No. 433 v. N.L.R.B., 598 F.2d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir.1979); Iron Workers District Council, 913 F.2d at 1476. *1388 In addition, when an employer establishes a valid reserve gate system, picketing at neutral gates is unlawful secondary picketing.

International Ass’n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local No. 433 v. NLRB, 598 F.2d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir.1979) (quoting Carpenters Dist.

Thus, "the inference of primary activity raised by compliance with the Moore Dry Dock standards may be dispelled if the totality of the circumstances [indicates] the union's" objective is secondary. 29 International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local No. 433 v. NLRB, 598 F.2d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir.1979) (quoting Carpenters Dist.

Standard of Review Twenty-nine U.S.C. §§ 160(e) and (f) provide that factual findings of the NLRB are conclusive if “supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.” See International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local No. 433 v. NLRB, 598 F.2d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir.1979).

Secs. 160(e) and (f) provide that factual findings of the NLRB are conclusive if "supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole." See International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local No. 433 v. NLRB, 598 F.2d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir.1979).

International Ass’n of Bridge Workers, Local No. 433 v. NLRB, 598 F.2d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir.1979).

International Ass'n of Bridge Workers, Local No. 433 v. NLRB, 598 F.2d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir.1979).

That is, since picketing (for instance) is not unlawful in itself, “[t]he key to determining whether section 158(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) was violated here is to identify the object of the union’s picketing .... ” International Association of Ironworkers v. NLRB, 598 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir.1979).

Under that test, picketing of a common situs will be presumed primary if 26 1) the picketing is strictly limited to times when the primary employer is at the situs; 27 2) the picketing is limited to times when the employer is engaged in work at the situs; 28 3) the picketing is limited to places reasonably close to location of the employer; 29 4) the picketing clearly identifies that the dispute is with the primary employer. 30 The Moore Dry Dock test, however, is merely "an…

The Moore Dry Dock test, however, is merely “an evidentiary tool.” International Association of Bridge, Structural, & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 483 v. NLRB, 598 F.2d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir.1979); see also Carpenters District Council of Southern Colorado v. NLRB, 560 F.2d 1015 .

In common situs picketing, a union has "a heavy burden ... to convince the trier of fact that the picketing was conducted in a manner least likely to encourage secondary effects." Allied Concrete v. NLRB, 607 F.2d at 830, quoting International Ass'n of Bridge, Etc. v. NLRB, 598 F.2d at 1159 (9th Cir. 1979).

In common situs picketing, a union has “a heavy burden ... to convince the trier of fact that the picketing was conducted in a manner least likely to encourage secondary effects.” Allied Concrete v. NLRB, 607 F.2d at 830, quoting International Ass’n of Bridge, Etc. v. NLRB, 598 F.2d at 1159 (9th Cir. 1979).

Int'l Ass'n of Bridge, Etc. v. NLRB, 598 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir., April 23, 1979).

Int’l Ass’n of Bridge, Etc. v. NLRB, 598 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir., 1979).

See International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local No. 433 v. NLRB, 598 F.2d 1154 , 1158 n. 6 (9th Cir.1979); see also NLRB v. Denver Bldg. & Constr.

See International Ass’n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local No. 433 v. NLRB, 598 F.2d 1154 , 1158 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1979); see also NLRB v. Denver Bldg. & Constr.

See Bridge Workers Local 433 v. NLRB, 598 F.2d 1154 , 1158 and n.6, 1159 (9th Cir. 1979).

See, e.g., International Ass’n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local No. 133 v. NLRB, 598 F.2d 1154, 1159-60 (9th Cir.1979) (enforcing Board’s order finding unlawful inducement in part based on conversations at neutral employer’s office gate between union agent and neutral employees who failed to report for work later that day, even though there was no testimony regarding the content of the conversations).

Compare id. at 1156-58 (finding that deficiencies in the gate signs and the union's lack of awareness that it had received a telegram informing it of the dual gate system defeated the NLRB's conclusion that the Union's picketing at a reserve gate had a secondary object). 19 The Union contends that they were prevented from complying with the gate system because of a state temporary restraining order (TRO) that limited them to having two pickets at each gate.