A W Behney Construction Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 1083 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

A W BEHNEY CONSTRUCTION CO 1083
A W Behney Construction Company, Inc and Local
492, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners
of America , AFL-CIO Case 4-CA-7677
June 17, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On April 9, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Almi-
ra Abbot Stevenson issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding Thereafter, the Respondent and the
Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting
briefs, and the Respondent filed an answering brief
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt her recommended Order
the Union, and refusing to reinstate them until October 24,
1975
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Charging Par
ty and the Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I JURISDICTION
The complaint alleges that the Respondent is a Pennsyl-
vania corporation engaged in the construction business
with its principal office located in Reading, Pennsylvania,
during the past calendar year the Respondent purchased
goods valued in excess of $50,000 from firms located in
Pennsylvania which received the goods directly from out-
side Pennsylvania The Respondent does not deny these
allegations, and I conclude that it is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act
II LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Charging Party Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES I
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, A W Behney Con-
struction Company, Inc, Reading, Pennsylvania, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in said recommended Order
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALMIRA ABBOT STEVENSON, Administrative Law Judge
This case was heard on February 19 and 20, 1976, in Read-
ing, Pennsylvania The complaint was filed and served on
the Respondent on November 4, 1975 The complaint was
issued on December 24, 1975, and duly answered by the
Respondent
The issues in this case are whether the Respondent
which entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with
the Charging Party Union covering carpenters and appren-
tices on October 7, 1974, effective until April 30, 1977,
violated Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as alleged in the complaint and denied in
the answer, on August 22, 1975, by withdrawing recogni-
tion, terminating the agreement, and announcing its inten-
tion of hiring nonunion men, and by terminating three em-
ployees because they were members of and represented by
A Background
In August 1975, A W Behney, referred to herein as
Behney, was president of the Respondent, as well as of
Berks Do-All Construction Company, Inc These two orga-
nizations, plus another not further referred to in the record,
operated out of a single office where they shared the tele-
phone-answering services of a single secretary paid by the
Respondent Berks Do-All and the Respondent both en-
gaged in the repair and reconstruction of damaged residen-
tial buildings, largely for insurance companies, such busi-
ness making up 98 percent of the Respondents business
Berks Do-All has always, apparently, operated nonunion
The Respondent also operated nonunion until sometime
prior to October 7, 1974, when it entered into a collective-
bargaining agreement with the Union covering carpenters
and apprentices Although not a member of Berks Con-
structor Associates, Inc , the Respondent on that date be-
came a party to the residential carpenter agreement be-
tween the Association and the Union which is effective
through April 30, 1977 With regard to the negotiations,
Union Business Agent Joseph Covely testified that Behney
came to his office and asked for an agreement with the
Union in order for the Union to supply men for his resi-
dential contracting business from its membership Covely
and Behney both testified that before the contract was en-
tered into the two of them discussed health and welfare,
pension, and other funds which were payable to the Union
not later than the 10th day of each month under the writ-
ten terms of the residential agreement, and that they made
1 Except where specifically discussed the relevant facts are substantially
undisputed
224 NLRB No 150
1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an oral "gentlemen's agreement" to the effect that the Re-
spondent could be delinquent in making payments to the
funds The two witnesses disagreed only on the length of
the delinquency agreed to, Covely testifying it was a 1- or
2-month delinquency, and Behney insisting it was a 3- to
5-month delinquency 2 Behney testified that the reason the
Union agreed to the delinquency was that the Union was
new to residential work and wished to build that kind of
work for the Union, and because Behney did so much in-
surance business and sometimes had to wait 6 months to
be paid for a job
As far as the record shows, there was no discussion be-
tween Covely and Behney of that part of article IV of the
written collective-bargaining agreement entered into by
them to the effect that failure by the employer to make its
payments to the funds "at the option of the Union, may be
deemed to be non-payment of wages, and the employees
may cease work, and may picket any job or site upon
which any such employer is working or engaged " Nor was
there any discussion of article V, which provided as fol-
lows
Bonding
All Employers who do not have a history of employer
contributions to the funds herein, will be required to
post a cash bond, or other form of security and/or pay
of fringes weekly to cover monetary fringe benefits
under this contract
The amount and the form of the bond posted and the
surety posting time shall be subject to the approval of
the Union The Union specifically reserves the right to
decide when the bond shall be posted and the amount
of the bond to be posted, based on the previous delin-
quency records of the Employer or those Employers
having no experience in the Funds
The Respondent soon began to fall behind in its pay
ments into the funds, until the Union on August 18, 1975,
filed suit against the Respondent in the Court of Common
Pleas of Berks County, Pennsylvania, for $5,822 owed The
suit was reported in the local newspaper the next day,
where the Respondent's three carpenters, Walter Kerber,
Antonio DeJesus, and Francis Pieller, all of whom are
members of the Union, learned for the first time about the
Respondent's delinquency When the three carpenters re-
ported for work on August 20, they advised Behney they
could not work for him if he did not make the payments
Business Agent Covely was summoned and, after discuss-
ing the matter with Behney, he told the carpenters that
Behney had promised to pay up by Friday, August 22, and
advised them to go to work The men worked on August 20
and 21
B The Terminations
The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) on August
22, 1975, by notifying the Union it was withdrawing recog-
2 The gentlemen s agreement also included certain privileges regarding
the Respondents employment of apprentices not pertinent to this case
nition from and terminating its collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Union and intended to hire nonunion men
as of August 25, 1975, and by terminating Kerber, De-
Jesus, and Pieller, and until October 24, 1975, refusing to
reinstate them because they were members of and repre-
sented by the Union
Behney telephoned Business Agent Covely on Friday,
August 22, and asked him to come to Behney's office at
quitting time that day as he was going to discharge the
Union's three members "and no longer operate as A W
Behney " That afternoon the three carpenters were called
to the office from their job locations Behney handed each
of them two paychecks, representing their wages in full
through the end of that day, and a copy of a letter ad-
dressed to the Union to the following effect
As of 4 30 today, the 22nd of August 1975 we cannot
afford to operate as a union contractor For the past
three months, or more, we have been paying the 50
cents an hour increase in wages and the insurance
companies that we work for will not pay the increase
Therefore, as stated above we will no longer consider
our company, A W BEHNEY CONSTRUCTION
CO INC, any longer a union contractor As of Au-
gust 25, 1975 we will hire non union men
Covely joined the group, was informed what had hap
pened, and was shown a copy of the letters Behney told
the group the Respondent would no longer be in business
after that day, but that he had nonunion work for the three
carpenters if they wanted it All rejected this offer and left
with their business agent
Behney testified that the reason for this conduct was
union pressure to pay up the fringe benefits and, as he
intended to say in his letters, because he would have to quit
operating union in May 1976 anyhow as his insurance
company customers had notified him they would not com-
pensate him for an additional wage increase which would
take effect, under the union contract, at that time
On Monday, August 25, Kerber, DeJesus, and Pieller
reported to the Respondent's office for work at the usual
time, as instructed by Union Business Agent Covely, and
accompanied by him Covely told Behney on that occasion
that he had brought the men to work under the union con-
tract, which was still in force, but Behney replied that the
Respondent was no longer in business, and only the non-
union shop was operating
The parties stipulated that subsequent to August 22,
1975, the Respondent corporation continued in business,
using as replacements for the three alleged discriminatees
nonunion carpenters, and that there was work available for
the alleged discriminatees from August 22, 1975, until Jan-
uary 20, 1976, had they not been terminated
The facts set forth above clearly establish, and I find,
that on August 22, 1975, the Respondent withdrew recog-
nition from the Union which was the exclusive contract
representative of its employees in an appropriate unit of
carpenters and apprentices, and terminated its contract
with the Union without giving the notices required by Sec-
tion 8(d) of the Act I conclude that the Respondent there-
by violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, as alleged in
A W BEHNEY CONSTRUCTION CO 1085
the complaint I also find that the Respondent discharged
Walter F Kerber, Antonio DeJesus, and Francis M Pieller
because they are members of and represented by the
Union, and conclude that this conduct was violative of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act 3
C The Reinstatement Offers
As stated above, the complaint alleges that the Respon-
dent refused to reinstate Kerber, DeJesus, and Pieller until
October 24, 1975 The Respondent contends that on Au-
gust 27 it offered unconditionally to reinstate the men on
September 2, 1975
On Wednesday, August 27, Covely and Behney met at
the courthouse and settled the lawsuit between them on the
basis of Behney's paying the Union the full amount
claimed According to Covely, Behney then told him he
would call Monday for two men, naming Pieller and De-
Jesus, and Covely understood him to be asking for union
men to work for the Respondent Covely replied that it
would be necessary for Behney to post a bond Behney
asked Covely about their gentlemen's agreement, but
Covely replied that it was no longer in effect because of
Behney's delinquencies and the court action which the
Union had been forced to take Later the same day,
Behney's secretary, Candice Conard, on Behney's instruc-
tions, left a call at the union hall for two men to report for
work on Tuesday, September 2, as Monday was Labor
Day Behney himself telephoned Covely on Tuesday, Sep-
tember 2, and asked for two men to work on the following
day, Wednesday, September 3 Covely responded that he
could not release the men until they had a settlement about
the bond, to guarantee future payments of fringe benefits
Behney insisted that the gentlemen's agreement should still
be recognized, and told Covely he would not post a bond
Covely had one other call from Behney after that, asking
for men under the gentlemen's agreement, but Covely told
Behney that a bond would be necessary Covely said his
secretary told him on two other occasions that Behney
tried to reach him, and Covely called back but was told
that Behney was not in and Covely did not leave his name
Behney contacted DeJesus directly on August 27, Sep-
tember 2, and September 30 when they met at the unem-
ployment compensation office,4 and asked him to work un-
der nonunion conditions DeJesus assumed these were
offers of employment by Berks Do-All, and he refused
them He and Pieller, however, did nonunion work on their
own as contractors on two jobs unrelated to the Respon-
dent, but quit the second job because Covely told them
they would have to withdraw their union books if they
continued to do that work
Pieller testified that Covely never told him Behney re-
quested him and DeJesus to work, but that sometime after
Labor Day Covely told him not to go back to work for
3 Behney s offer of nonunion work did not alter the legal effect of his
conduct on August 22 See Marquis Elevator Company Inc 217 NLRB 461
(1975) John E Holkko d/b/a Lifetime Shingle Company 203 NLRB 688
(1973) Johnson Electric Company Inc 196 NLRB 637 (1972)
4 Based on DeJesus testimony I believe Behney s denial that he spoke to
the men on September 30 represented a memory lapse he did not deny the
other offers testified to by DeJesus
Behney because he was nonunion and did not post a bond
Kerber testified that Covely told him the first week after he
was laid off, after Labor Day, that "A W Behney wanted
someone to go up to his place to work, but he could not
send me out unless he put up a bond " Covely said that it
was union men Behney wanted, and that Kerber was sup-
posed to go to work for Behney the day after Labor Day
Behney testified that he told a referee at the unemploy-
ment compensation agency on September 30 that he op-
posed the payment of unemployment compensation to
these three men, "because I asked for them to work a week
later after the union dispute started that they could
work union or nonunion, I don t care, I want to get my
jobs done "
Letters dated October 24, 1975, on A W Behney Con
struction Co, Inc, stationery, were sent by Behney, as
president, to each of the carpenters, with a copy to Covely,
as follows
We have made many attempts with Joe Covely, busi-
ness agent for Local 492, to try to get you back in our
employment On or about Tuesday, Sept 30, 1975, we
met in the unemployment office for a hearing for un-
employment
We have held an opening for your employment here,
however, we cannot hold it any longer than Tuesday,
November 4, 1975
NOTE On Sept 30, 1975 Mrs Behney, C Conard,
and Mr Behney made several attempts to try to re-
solve the dispute between the union Local 492, and
A W Behney Const Co, Inc, however, Joe Covely
would not return the calls And on Oct 1, 1975, Mr
Behney called from his home at 8 15 A M and asked
for the same men and also to resolve our differences
The business agent refused completely to make any
settlement and hung up
On October 29, Covely addressed the following letter to
the Respondent
Your letter of Oct 24, 1975 to Members, Kerber, De-
Jesus and Pieller have been reviewed by me
You make a gross misstatement when you state that
you made many attempts to get these men back in
your employment On the contrary, there were periods
of time when neither I, nor our members could reach
you Secondly, your so called attempts were efforts on
your part to secure conditions of employment that vio
lated your agreement with us for instance, in spite of
your poor record regarding pension and health & wel-
fare payments (causing us to bring suit against you)
you demanded that these funds not be payable or
postponed for three months
Further, I did talk to you but couldn't resolve the mat-
ter because you were asking to be permitted to be 3
months delinquent in pension and health & welfare
payments
Our members have always been ready, willing and
able to report for work with you so long as you are
willing to abide by your agreement with this Union
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and this includes the protection for the pension, health
& welfare funds
We shall expect to hear from you regarding the fore-
going
Covely testified that, although as of August 27 the Re-
spondent was settled up to date on fringe payments, Love-
ly refused to supply men to the Respondent because Beh-
ney refused to post a bond, and because DeJesus told
Covely that Behney tried to seduce him away from the
Union and persuade him to work nonunion Covely said it
was the contract which required the bond, but that, under
the contract, the amount, the form, and the surety for the
bond were at the Union's discretion and the Union had not
decided these matters In refusing to assign men in this
instance, he said he was carrying out the provisions of arti-
cle IV of the written collective-bargaining agreement,
which identifies fringe benefits as wages, and permits em-
ployees to cease work if an employer fails to make such
payments
None of the three alleged discrimmatees has returned to
work for the Respondent Kerber testified that he showed
his October 24 letter to Business Agent Covely who told
him that the Respondent had never put up a bond, and he
was "not allowed to send anyone out unless he fulfilled his
half of the contract" in this manner Kerber did not return
to work for Behney, he said, because Behney did not put
up a bond DeJesus said that Covely told him, when he
received his October 24 letter, that the business agent
would take whatever steps were necessary, if any Pieller
testified he did not return to work for Behney because "He
said he's no longer union "
Behney testified that since August 25 he has had union
jobs for Kerber, DeJesus, and Pieller and is prepared to
abide by the union contract provided the "gentlemen's
agreement," regarding apprentices and permitting him to
remain 3 to 5 months late on payment of fringe benefits, is
continued
The General Counsel contends that no valid offers of
reinstatement were made before October 24 because none
were made directly to the employees involved and neither
Covely nor the Union were their agents for receiving such
offers, Kerber was never specifically requested, all such
offers failed to specify that they were for employment by
the Respondent and not by Berks Do-All and that the Re-
spondent had altered its policy of unlawful discrimination,
and Behney's offers of nonunion work and failure to put
the pre-October offers in writing demonstrated his bad
faith The Charging Party contends, in addition, that none
of the offers, including that of October 24, were uncondi-
tional because they were not clearly for work under the
union contract, and because the Respondent wanted the
special privilege of not posting a bond guaranteeing pay-
ment of fringe benefits as called for in the contract
The Board has held that offers of reinstatement con-
veyed to employees through their bargaining representative
are valid offers of reinstatement where the Union was in
fact their designated agent 5 In this case, the three discrimi-
natees were members of the Union, they sent for Covely to
5 Lipman Bros Inc et al 164 NLRB 850 (1967)
represent their interests in dealing with Behney, and they
followed his advice and instructions in all matters Covely
acted as their spokesman with Behney and, by giving them
advice and instructions, controlled their conduct Behney
recognized Covely as the employees' representative and
dealt with him as such I find, therefore, that Union Busi-
ness Agent Covely was the agent of the discriminatees for
receiving offers of reinstatement
Throughout this record, parties on both sides speak of
union and nonunion work in the same way that to my
knowledge the terms are generally used, as work which is
covered, and work which is not covered, by a union con
tract It also seems clear that all parties knew that men
obtained through the Union had to be employed under the
union contract Therefore, when Behney, on August 27,
upon settling the Union's suit against the Respondent, in
formed Covely he would call the union hall for men, he
revealed a change of mind about his treatment of the
Respondent's employees and their Union, its willingness
now to take two of them back, and to employ them under
the terms of the union contract and the oral agreement as
Behney interpreted it Behney testified to this effect, and
Covely clearly so understood and subsequently indicated
as much to the employees None of them raised a question
as to whether such offers might be for nonunion work or
for employment by Berks Do-All
Similarly, Behney's October 24 letters to the discrimina-
tees left no doubt that they were offers of work for the
Respondent as they were written on its letterhead and
signed by Behney as its president Moreover, that the offers
were for union work was clear from Behney's sending a
copy to Covely who acknowledged as much by responding
for the addressees and raising no question on this subject
Behney's offers of nonunion work to DeJesus were not
made through the Union and neither Covely nor DeJesus
was confused or that score In view of the availability of
work and the Union's refusal to dispatch men, I find that
the nonunion offers to DeJesus were not evidence that
Behney's requests for men from the Union were made in
bad faith but were, as Behney indicated, attempts to recruit
a carpenter to work on any basis he could get him Nor do
I find evidence of bad faith in Behney s pre-October failure
to put his offers in writing or to specifically enunciate a
promise not to discriminate again The record shows that
Behney is not a particularly articulate person and that he
considers himself ill-equipped to express himself in writing
and no one suggested he do so or that he make any such
promises, doubtless because all parties understood that by
August 27 he had changed his mind about his recent con-
duct, found above to have been unlawful 6
It is undisputed that Behney told Covely on August 27
that he would send for two men, specifically naming De
Jesus and Pieller, the same day Behney's secretary request
ed the union hall to send two men on September 2, the day
after Labor Day, the next day Behney made the same re-
quest, and made several subsequent attempts to obtain car
penters from the Union I find that the Respondent, by this
6 The Board has not to my knowledge required in circumstances like
those present here that offers of reinstatement be made in writing or con
fain assurances against future discrimination Cf Art Metalcraft Plating
Co Inc 133 NLRB 706 (1961)
A W BEHNEY CONSTRUCTION CO
conduct, offered in good faith to reinstate DeJesus and
Pieller on September 2
The evidence about Kerber is more puzzling Thus, there
is no testimony by either Behney or Covely that Kerber
was requested by name, or that more than two men were
requested, but Kerber said Covely told him he could have
gone back to work the day after Labor Day In view of
Pieller's undisputed testimony that Covely never told him
about Behney's request for him, I believe that Covely told
Kerber instead In fact, however, there is no testimony that
Behney offered reinstatement to Kerber, by name or by
implication, before his letter of October 24
The Charging Party's contention that the Respondent's
reinstatement offers were not unconditional because it
wanted the special privilege of not posting a bond is, in my
opinion, without merit Thus, Behney's insistence on the
continuation of the gentlemen's agreement, which he con-
tends allows him to be 3 to 5 months late in paying fringes,
was not the imposition of a new condition on the employ-
ment of these men, but only reservation of his right to
assert his argument in favor of his interpretation of the oral
agreement, and expression of his willingness to return to
the situation as it was before the employees were dis-
charged 7 By contrast, the previou,'y existing situation had
not encompassed the posting of a bond, and the Respon
dent was not required to accede to the Union's demand
that it do so in order to fulfill its obligation to uncondition-
ally offer reinstatement 8
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent did not place
any conditions on its offers to reinstate the three unlawful
ly discharged men, which offers were first made so as to
toll his liability for backpay, effective September 2, 1975,
as to DeJesus and Pieller, and effective October 24, 1975,
as to Kerber
IV REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I recom-
mend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from the unfair labor practices found and, in view of the
nature thereof, to cease and desist from infringing in any
other manner on its employees' rights guaranteed by the
Act, and to take certain affirmative action
Having found that the discriminatorily discharged em-
ployees have already received unconditional offers, I shill
not recommend that they again be offered reinstatement,
but shall recommend that they be made whole for any loss
of wages suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them on August 22 plus interest at 6 percent per annum
Antonio DeJesus and Francis Pieller until September 2,
and Walter Kerber until October 24, 1975 9
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully refused to
bargain, I shall recommend that it bargain in good faith
with the Union
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
7 See Texas Gas Corporation 136 NLRB 355 369 par 3 (1962)
8 See Lion Oil Company 109 NLRB 680 710 (1954)
9 Backpay shall be computed in accord with F W Woolworth Company
90 NLRB 289 (1950) interest in accord with Isis Plumbing & Heating Co
138 NLRB 716 (1962)
1087
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended
ORDER 1`
The Respondent, A W Behney Construction Compa-
ny, Inc, Reading, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employee because he is a member of or represented by
Local 492, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other union
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with
the above-named Union as the exclusive representative of
its employees in an appropriate unit of carpenters and ap-
prentices, by withdrawing recognition from or terminating
its collective-bargaining agreement with the Union without
giving the notices required by Section 8(d) of the Act
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action
(a) Make whole Antonio DeJesus, Francis Pieller, and
Walter Kerber for any loss of wages suffered by reason of
the discrimination against them plus interest at 6 percent
per annum, in the manner set forth in the Remedy section
of this Decision
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with
the above-named labor organization, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of its employees in the appropriate unit of car-
penters and apprc itices, concerning rates of pay, wages,
hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll, social security payment, and personnel records and
reports, timecards, and all other records necessary to ana-
lyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order
(d) Post at its locations in Reading Pennsylvania, copies
of the attached notice marked Appendix 11 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director of
Region 4, after being duly signed by an authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily post
ed Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material
10 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings
conclusions and recommended Order herein shall as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become
its findings conclusions and Order and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
11 In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board
1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against any employee because he is a member of or
represented by Local 492, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or any other
union
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively in good
faith with the above named Union as the exclusive
representative of our employees in an appropriate unit
of carpenters and apprentices by withdrawing recogni-
tion from or terminating our collective-bargaining
agreement with the Union without giving the notices
required by Section 8(d) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act
WE WILL make whole Antonio DeJesus, Francis
Pieller, and Walter Kerber for any loss of wages they
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them,
plus 6-percent interest per annum
WE WILL, upon request, bargain in good faith with
the above-named Union as the exclusive representa-
tive of an appropriate unit of carpenters and appren-
tices
A W BEHNEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC