54014 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations 16, 1949), promulgating 29 CFR 516.18, hiring hall agreement did not encourage does the Board without Section 10(c) the predecessor to 29 CFR 516.4. or discourage union membership by authority.” The Board rejects this 5. The Teamsters 357 Decision “discrimination.” See id. at674—75. By argument because it fails to recognize , faulting the union for not including in the important substantive difference In response to the NPRM, the U.S. its agreement clauses that the Board’s between the conduct at issue in Chamber of Commerce submitted a Mountain Pacific rule had declared Lechmere, which involved ‘‘ ‘trespassory comment that questions “how the necessary to prevent “ ‘unlawful organizational activity’”’ by proposal can be said to be consistent encouragement of union membership,’” nonemployees on the employer’s with” the Supreme Court’s decision in —_ jd, at 671 (quoting Mountain Pacific grounds, id. at 535 (quoting Sears, Local 357, International Brotherhood of — Chapter, 119 NLRB at 897), the Board Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Dist. Teamsters v. NLRB, 365 U.S. 667 (1961). had attempted to regulate hiring halls in Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180, 205 Specifically, the Chamber accuses the a manner that was facially inconsistent —_(1978)), and the regulations here which Board of ignoring the Court's with the discrimination requirement involve nothing more than the admonition in that case warning that embedded in NLRA Section 8(a)(3) and employer’s responsibility to post an “[w]here * * * Congress has aimed its —_ (b)(2). Accordingly, the Chamber makes _ official notice of legal rights. sanctions only at specific discriminatory too much of the Court’s statement The Portland Cement Association practices, the Board cannot go farther prohibiting the Board from (PCA) comments that the Board’s failure and establish a broader, more pervasive — “‘establish[ing] a broader, more to place the t