(finding unlawful coercion where union members caused a disturbance at a motel housing striker replacements, reasoning that the motel was a neutral employer and the union activity could pressure it to terminate its relationship with the labor supply contractor in order to force the latter to cease doing business with the primary employer), enforced, 977 F.2d 1470 (D.C.Cir.1992); Local No. 742, United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 237 N.L.R.B. 564, 565-66, 1978 WL 8384 (1978) (finding that a union’s quid pro quo request for premium pay from a neutral employer was unlawfully coercive because it was actually an effort to cause the modification of that employer’s relationship with another employer); Service & Maintenance Employees Union, Local 399, 136 N.L.R.B. 431, 436-37 (1962) (<HOLDING>). Here, though one can imagine more significant
holding that a unions generally nonexpressive marching around the main entrance of a sports arena impeding public access constituted unlawful coercion holding that during a postriot lockdown refusal of access to main law library is constitutional as long as access to basic law library for initial legal research is permitted holding first that injuries sustained during contact sports were foreseeable then deciding that public policy insulated the defendant from liability for those injuries holding that the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in an apartment bmldings common entrance holding that appellant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy outside his home where the drug dog sniffed because the front door area was not enclosed it was used as a main entrance to the house and it was not protected from observation by passersby