Bldg. Material & Construction Teamster No. 216

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 1046 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Building Material & Construction Teamsters Union
Local No. 216, International•Btotherliood of,Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America .and Bigge Drayage Company. Cases
20-CE-65 and 20-CD-294
August 24, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 21, 1971, Trial Examiner James R.
Webster issued the attadhed Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent Union filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel and the Charging Party each filed cross-
exceptions and answering briefs.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his
recommended Order, as modified herein.
The Board is in unanimous agreement with the
Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act by threatening, coercing,
and restraining the Trucking Division of Bigge
Drayage Company i and other companies with an
object of forcing or requiring Drayage to assign
certain work to employees who are members of the
Respondent, Teamsters Local 216, rather than to
employees who are members of Teamsters Locals 70
and 85.
A majority of the Board (Chairman Miller and
Members Kennedy and Penello) also agrees with the
Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated Section
8(e) of the Act by entering into2 the aforesaid
contract with Crane to the extent that the contract
restricts, as it does in section 30(C), the subcontract-
ing by Crane of work relating to the hauling of heavy
prestressed concrete girders, which is work that
Crane and its employees have never performed.3
Section 8(e) was enacted to supplement existing
prohibitions against secondary boycotts by making
unlawful "any contract or agreement, express or
implied," whereby the employer agrees not to handle
products of another employer or agrees to cease
doing business with any other person. As the
Supreme Court explained in the National Woodwork
case ,4 the intention of Congress was not to prohibit
I The Trucking Division, herein called Drayage , and Bigge Crane and
Rigging Company , herein called Crane , are divisions of Bigge Drayage
Company During critical periods , Drayage was under contractual relations
,ith Teamsters Locals 70 and 85, and Crane was under contractual relations
with Teamsters Local 216, the Respondent herein, by virtue of their
respective memberships in the Northern and Central California Chapter,
the Associated General Contractors of America, Inc, and the Heavy,
Highway , Building and Construction Teamsters Committee for Northern
California
2 The actual execution of the contract predated the Act's 10(b) period
herein, but the Trial Examiner found a renewed "entering into" for 8(e)
all union-employer agreements which may hive the
incidental effect of a cessation of business with
another employer. Rather, Congress envisioned that
Section. 8(e) would embody the distinction between
lawful "primary" and unlawful "secondary" boycott
activity made in Section 8(b)(4). In examining
contractual provisions under Section 8(e), the Court
said,. "The touchstone is whether the Agreement or
its maintenance is addressed to the labor relations of
the contracting employer vis-a-vis his own employ-
ees."5 Thus, when the agreement is intended to
protect and preserve unit work it is primary and
permissible, whereas an agreement "tactically calcu-
lated to satisfy union objectives elsewhere" is
secondary and impermissible. The determination
must be made on the basis of all the attendant
circumstances.
The pertinent facts and circumstances in this case
are as follows: Under AGC contracts, Respondent
has represented drivers in the construction industry
for many years. The work of these drivers consists
generally of hauling dirt, rock and debris, asphalt,
and other materials and supplies. None of the
employer-parties, to' the' contract ever hauled pre-
stressed concrete girders. Indeed, none of them have
the necessary equipment for such work. Though the
contract's coverage was extended in 1968 to embrace
classifications which are described to perform this
work, to which the subcontracting provisions of the
contract noted above was to become applicable, it
does not appear that the classifications were included
in anticipation of the AGC members undertaking the
work. As already indicated, they never did.
The disputed hauling work continued to be
performed, as it was theretofore, by employers who
were members of the California Trucking Associa-
tion and who employed members of Teamsters
Locals 70 and 85. However, subsequent to the
addition of the above-mentioned hauling classifica-
tions in the AGC contract, Respondent sought to
acquire such work for its members, claiming entitle-
ment to it under the AGC contract. It also sought to
impose the obligations of the subcontracting provi-
sions upon the subcontractor who performed this
work.6
purposes by virtue of Respondent 's enforcement of the contract within the
10(b) period
3 The contract provisions involved are set forth in sec 111, D, of the Trial
Examiner ' s Decision
a National Woodwork Manufacturers Association , et at v N L R B, 386
U S 612, 637-639 (1967).
5 Id at 644-645
6 Craig, president and business agent of the Respondent , testified that
"we want the men who are driving those trucks to receive the benefit of this
contract as wages, working conditions and fringe benefits would apply"
198 NLRB No. 130
BLDG. MATERIAL & CONSTRUCTION TEAMSTERS NO. 216 1047
It thus appears that the Respondent has entered
into a contract? which, insofar as the work of hauling
prestressed concrete girders is concerned, limits
subcontracting to those employers who would
observe section 30(C) and (D). Since the employers
who are parties to the AGC contract were not
engaged in this type of hauling, nor are shown even
to have anticipated its performance, the object of this
restriction was not the preservation or protection of
unit work. If it served no primary purpose, it is only
reasonable to conclude that its aim was a secondary
one, as this record amply demonstrates. To the extent
noted, therefore, a majority of the Board (Chairman
Miller and Members Kennedy and Penello) finds an
8(e) violation.8
In order to remedy this violation, Respondent will
be ordered to cease and desist from maintaining,
giving effect to, or enforcing the subcontracting
clauses of its AGC contract with Crane, insofar as
the agreement restricts the subcontracting of nonunit
work relating to the hauling of prestressed concrete
girders.9
A majority of the Board (Members Fanning,
Jenkins, and Penello) would not, however, find that
subsections (C) and (D) of section 30 of the AGC
contract are unlawful union signatory clauses pros-
cribed by Section 8(e) of the Act. Consistent with the
majority position in General Teamsters Local 386
` onstruction Materials Trucking, Inc.), 198 NLRB
issued this date, this majority would find these
subsections lawful in their impact on unit work, such
as was there involved.10 Because, in this connection,
this majority would find that the contract provisions
in question are unambiguous on their face, Union
Agent Craig's alleged implementation thereof does
not have the relevance to them that is given to it by
the minority view of Chairman Miller and Member
Kennedy. General Teamsters, Local 982 (J. K Barker
Trucking Co.), 181 NLRB 515, enfd. 450 F.2d 1322
(C.A.D.C.); International Brotherhood of Boilermak-
ers, Local 92 (Bigge Drayage Co.), 197 NLRB No. 34.
In any event, Craig's testimony and behavior
subsequent to the execution of the contract herein
clearly show that he considered Bigge bound to the
noneconomic provisions of the contract because of
his erroneous belief that Bigge and Crane (a party to
the contract) were a single employer. Besides, it
The 1968 AGC contract was reaffirmed and implemented by the
Respondent during the critical period herein
8 Teamsters Local No 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Schnuck
Markets, Inc), 193 NLRB No 109, Culinary Alliance and Hotel Service
Employees Union Local 402 (The San Diego Civic Facilities Corporation), 175
NLRB 161 , Local Union No 26 of Sheet Metal Workers' International
Association (Reno Employers Council), 168 NLRB 893
9 Contrary to the Charging Party's exception, it is found that the Trial
Examiner's recommendation that the Respondent post notices at its
business offices and meeting halls will be sufficient in this case to effectuate
appears that the practices and requirements unilater-
ally imposed by Craig were in no way sanctioned by
the contract, even by its noneconomic provisions.
Thus, the manner in which the health, welfare, and
pension portions of the agreement were implemented
were no more required by the contract than Craig's
insistence that his Union's members be hired for the
hauling work herein, as found by the Trial Examiner.
Chairman Miller and Member Kennedy disagree
on this issue for the reasons set forth in their dissent
in General Teamsters Local 386, supra. They find
reinforcement for their view in the testimony of
Respondent's president and business agent, Dallas
Craig, who stated that Respondent construes- and
applies section 30(C) as requiring compliance by the
subcontract with noneconomic as well as economic
programs of the agreement. Thus, Craig testified that
the subcontractor would be expected to comply with
the prejob conference provision of section 3(B) of the
agreement, which clearly is not an economic -provi-
sion. Furthermore, when asked how the employer to
whom the work was subcontracted was to comply
with the health, welfare, and pension portions of the
agreement, Craig asserted the contributions would
have to be made into the specific Northern Califor-
nia Teamsters Security Fund, a construction team-
sters trust fund, through the device of placing the
employees of the non-signatory subcontractor on the
employment roster of the primary employer. This
admitted requirement of making payments to a
specified trust fund, especially by means of placing
the employees of a subcontractors onto the payroll of
the primary employer, demonstrates to Chairman
Miller and Member Kennedy that the clause requires
more than payment to employees of the subcontrac-
tor of an amount equal to or greater than the total
economic benefits contained in the Construction
Teamsters Master Agreement. They view the testi-
mony of Dallas Craig as establishing that section
30(C) was intended to enhance the health and
welfare and pension trust funds of the Construction
Teamsters Unions, even though the employees of the
subcontractor are not members of the Construction
Teamsters Union, likely would never become mem-
the Act's policies
10 Members Fanning and Jenkins, although participating in this majority
position, would note they would not find an 8(e) violation on any basis In
their opinion , the work of hauling concrete girders is so closely related to the
operation of hauling heavy equipment which is performed by members in
the bargaining unit that it may be said to be fairly claimable by them The
Respondent was therefore entitled to protect such work as it did in its
agreement with Crane For, fairly claimable work may, without violating
Section 8 (e), be protected by subcontracting provisions or union standards
clauses in the bargaining agreement . Meat and Highway Drivers, Local 710,
Teamsters [Wilson & Co ] v N L R B, 335 F 2d 709 (C.A D C)
1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bers of that Union, and would not receive any 2. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial
benefits from those payments.ii In the view of Examiner's notice.
Chairman Miller and Member Kennedy, therefore,
such payments must have been intended to benefit
Respondent in a more general sense, including its
members who are not encompassed by the contract
unit. Respondent also took the position that any
deficiency payments would have to be made to
specific out-of-work members of Respondent rather
than to employees of the subcontractor actually
performing the work. In the minority view of
Chairman Miller and Member Kennedy, therefore,
this interpretation of the subcontracting clause goes
beyond a legitimate work preservation objective and
is "tactically calculated to satisfy union objectives
elsewhere."
The following order will be entered in order to
remedy the 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) violation and the finding of
an 8(e) violation based solely on the extent to which
the contract restricts, in section 30(C), the subcon-
tracting by Crane of work relating to the hauling of
prestressed concrete girders.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders
that the Respondent, Building Material & Construc-
tion Teamsters Union Local No. 216, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's recommended Order, as modified
below:
1. Delete paragraph 1(a), substitute the following
paragraphs as 1(a) and (b), and reletter the former
paragraph 1(b) as 1(c):
"(a) Maintaining, giving effect to, or enforcing
section 30(C) and (D) of its AGC collective-bargain-
ing agreement with Bigge Crane and Rigging
Company, insofar as those provisions restrict the
subcontracting of work relating to the hauling of
prestressed concrete girders.
"(b) Entering into, maintaining, giving effect to, or
enforcing any other contract or agreement with any
members of the Northern and Central Chapter of the
Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.,
whereby such employer ceases or refrains, or agrees
to cease or refrain, from handling, using, selling,
transporting, or otherwise dealing in any of the
products of any other employer, or from doing
business with any other person in violation of Section
8(e) of the Act."
I1 Craig also testified that Respondent would not permit a subcontractor
to make payments to its own employees' trust funds equal to that required
by the Construction Master Agreement Chairman Miller and Member
Kennedy note , therefore , that payments to Respondent 's trust funds would
of course afford no demonstrable benefits to Bigge Trucking 's or another
subcontractor's employees, nor would they tend to diminish any economic
advantage on the part of the signatory employers from subcontracting unit
work
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT maintain, give effect to, or
enforce section 30(C) and (D) of our collective-
bargaining agreement with Bigge Crane and
Rigging Company, insofar as the agreement
restricts the subcontracting of work relating to the
hauling of prestressed concrete girders.
WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain, give effect
to, or enforce any contract or agreement with any
member of the Northern and Central Chapter of
the Associated General Contractors of America,
Inc., whereby such employer ceases or refrains, or
agrees to cease or refrain, from handling using,
selling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in any
of the products of any other employer, or from
doing business with any other person in violation
of Section 8(e) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Bigge
Crane and Rigging Company or the Trucking
Division of Bigge Drayage Company or Hensel
Phelps Construction Company or Castcon, Inc.,
for an object of forcing or requiring the Trucking
Division of Bigge Drayage Company to assign the
work of hauling prestressed concrete girders over
highways and streets in the counties of San
Francisco and San Mateo to employees who are
members of this Union rather than to employees
who are members of Teamsters Locals 70 or 85,
or of any other labor organization.
BUILDING MATERIAL &
CONSTRUCTION
TEAMSTERS UNION
LOCAL No. 216,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN &
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
BLDG. MATERIAL & CONSTRUCTION TEAMSTERS NO. 216 1049
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 13018 Federal Building, 450 Golden
Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California
94102, Telephone 415-556-3197.
of Bigge Drayage Company is engaged in the over -the-road
transporation of large and heavy items.
Bigge Drayage Company is an employer engaged in
commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
I find that Hensel Phelps Construction Company and
Caputo Construction Company, general contractors, and
Castcon , Inc., fabricator of prestressed concrete, are
employers engaged in the building and construction
industry , and are , therefore , employers engaged in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(7) and 8(b) (4) of the Act.'
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES R. WEBSTER, Trial Examiner: This case was heard
in San Francisco, California, on December 15 and 16,
1970, and January 18 and 19, 1971. The complaint and
amendments thereto were issued on August 13, August 28,
and on October 29, 1970. The charges were filed in Case
20-CE-65 on January 14, 1970, and in Case 20-CD-294
on February 26, 1970. The complaint alleges that Respon-
dent has entered into a contract with the Northern and
Central Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of
America, Inc., to the effect that members of that
Association will not subcontract the work of hauling heavy
prestressed concrete girders over highways and streets
within Respondent's geographical jurisdiction unless such
subcontractors comply with terms and conditions in said
contract; that Respondent has thereby violated Section
8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the
Act. The complaint also alleges that Respondent has
threatened several employers to cause the Trucking
Division of Bigge Drayage Company to assign the work
described above to members of Respondent rather than to
employees represented by other unions, and that Respon-
dent has thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the
witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
the General Counsel, the Charging Party and the Respon-
dent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESSES OF THE EMPLOYERS
Bigge Drayage Company, a California corporation, with
place of business in San Leandro, California, is engaged as
a common carrier in intrastate and interstate hauling by
motor truck. During the past year, Bigge Drayage
Company received in excess of $50,000 for services
performed directly to customers located outside the State
of California. Bigge Crane and Rigging Company is a
division of Bigge Drayage Company and is engaged in
performing crane and egging services for contractors in the
building and construction industry. The Trucking Division
Building Material and Construction Teamsters Union,
Local No. 216, of San Francisco, California, herein
referred to as Respondent , is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Teamsters Local No. 70 of Oakland, California, and
Teamsters Local No. 85 of San Francisco, California, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues
1. Whether the work of hauling heavy prestressed
concrete girders over public highways and streets for
delivery to construction sites in San Francisco County,
California, which work was performed by Bigge's Trucking
Division , is "unit work" or fairly claimable as unit work of
the employees of Bigge Crane and Rigging Company
represented by Respondent; that is, is the objective of
Respondent's subcontracting clause in its contract with
Bigge Crane and Rigging Company "work preservation" or
an effort to control the labor relation of nonunit employ-
ees?
2. Did Respondent through statements of representa-
tive Dallas Craig threaten Bigge 's Trucking Division and
other employers with work stoppages for an object of
forcing or requiring Bigge 's Trucking Division to assign the
work in dispute to members of Respondent rather than to
members of Teamsters Locals 70 and 85, and thereby
violate Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act? And if so, does this
constitute an "entering into " of the contract on these
occasions, the initial execution of said contract having
occurred more than 6 months prior to the filing of the
initial charge herein.
3. Did Respondent and Teamsters Locals No. 70 and
85 enter into an effective voluntary adjustment of the
jurisdictional dispute involved herein?
B. The Work Involved
Respondent represents truckdrivers employed in the
construction industry, including highway, general building,
and heavy construction, in the counties of San Francisco
and San Mateo, California. It is a party to a collective-
bargaining agreement with the Northern and Central
I Local 20, Sheet Metal Workers Union (Bergen Drug Co), 132 NLRB 73
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
California Chapter of the Associated General Contractors
of America , Inc., herein referred to as the AGC. Bigge
Crane and Rigging Company was at all times material
herein a member of the AGC and was therefore a party to
the contract between the AGC and Respondent. At the
time of the hearing herein Bigge Crane and Rigging had
withdrawn from its membership in the AGC.
Teamsters Locals 70 and 85 represent drivers engaged in
over-the-road and local hauling and are parties to a
contract with the California Trucking Association , herein
referred to as CTA. Bigge 's Trucking Division is a member
of this association and Teamsters Locals 70 and 85
represent its employers.
In 1969 and 1970 , Bigge Crane and Rigging Company
was engaged in two construction projects, in the San
Francisco area which were the subject of its dispute with
Respondent . One was the construction of a phase of the
San Francisco Rapid Transit System at Crystal and
Modock Streets in San Francisco , California , herein
referred to as the Crystal Street project. The other was a
state highway construction project in San Francisco,
California , known as the China Basin project.
On the Crystal Street project , general contractor Hensel
Phelps subcontracted the manufacture , transportation, and
erection of prestressed concrete girders to Castcon Inc., of
Richmond , California. Castcon in turn subcontracted the
transportation and erection of the girders to Bigge Crane
and Rigging Company. Bigge Crane and Rigging Compa-
ny in turn subcontracted the transportation of the girders
to Bigge 's Trucking Division. Castcon transported the
girders by barge from its plant in Richmond , California, to
Pier 42 in San Francisco . Bigge's Trucking Division
transported these girders from Pier 42 to the Crystal Street
jobsite . The girders were approximately 70 feet in length
and weighed as much as 100 tons.
At the China Basin project , the general contractor,
Caputo Construction Company, subcontracted to Castcon,
the manufacturer, transportation and erection of similar
prestressed concrete girders. In February 1970, Castcon
contracted with Bigge Crane and Rigging for the transpor-
tation and erection of these girders . Bigge Crane and
Rigging again subcontracted to Bigge's Trucking Division
the transportation of these girders. Some of the girders
were picked up by the Trucking Division at Castcon's
Richmond, California, plant and transported to the China
Basin jobsite . Other girders , approximately 50 in number
and being of larger size and weight , were delivered by
Castcon by barge to San Francisco, where they were
loaded on trucks of Bigge 's Trucking Division and
delivered to the China Basin jobsite.
`C. Respondent's Claim That This Work Be
Performed Pursuant to the AGC Contract
Dallas Craig, Respondent 's president and business agent,
testified that as to the work that was performed completely
within the confines of Respondent 's territorial jurisdiction,
being the girders that were picked up at a San Francisco
pier and delivered to a jobsite in San Francisco , Respon-
dent is "entitled to people on the job and our contract must
be observed." As to the girders that were picked up at
Castcon's plant in Contra Costa County and delivered to
the China Basin jobsite in San Francisco , Craig testified
that "we want the men who are driving those trucks to
receive the benefit of this [AGC] contract as wages,
working conditions and fringe benefits would apply."
To comply with the AGC contract , Craig testified that
Bigge 's Trucking Division should have requested a prejob
conference before starting its jobs in San Francisco. This
would have been pursuant to section 3B(l) of the AGC
contract . Next, that during the prejob conference arrange-
ments would be made for Bigge 's Trucking Division to hire
a member of Respondent for each driver employed on the
job from another union ; thus, if Bigge 's Trucking Division
wanted a crew of 10 men , 5 must be from Respondent.
This would be pursuant to section 3C(2)(e) of the AGC
contract . Craig referred to it as the 50-50 rule. Craig also
pointed out that the contract (section 3B(2)) provides that
if a prejob conference is not held , an employer shall be
prohibited from utilizing the provisions of section 3C(2)(e)
and shall be required to obtain all employees from the
employment office of the union in the locality of the job.
D. The AGC Contract Provisions on Subcontracting
The Construction Master Agreement, which Respondent
contends has been violated by Bigge Crane and Rigging
and by general contractor Hensel Phelps in the subcon-
tracting of the transportation of the girders contains the
following provisions on subcontracting.
Section 30 - SUBCONTRACTING
C. The Employer further agrees that when subcon-
tracting work covered by this Agreement which is to be
performed within the geographical area covered by this
Agreement but which is not to be performed at the site
of the construction , alteration, painting or repair of the
building , road or other work , he will subcontract such
work only to an Employer or person who agrees that
the persons performing such work will work in
accordance with the schedule of hours and will receive
not less than the wages and economic benefits provided
in this Agreement including holidays , vacations, prenu-
ums, overtime , health and welfare and pension contrib-
utions or benefits or their equivalent and any other
programs or contributions required by this Agreement
and who further agrees to submit any grievance or
disputes concerning his performance or compliance
with such undertaking to the procedures set forth in
Section 15 of this Agreement.
As to any Employer who has always subcontracted
work involving certain equipment , this paragraph shall
not become applicable with respect to work involving
such equipment if its validity is challenged by charges
filed by the National Labor Relations Board until
determination by the National Labor Relations Board
or if not by the National Labor Relations Board, by a
Court of competent jurisdiction that the provisions are
not in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
D. The Employer will give written notice to the
Union of any subcontract involving the performance of
work covered by this Agreement within five (5) days of
BLDG. MATERIAL & CONSTRUCTION TEAMSTERS NO. 216 1051
entering into such subcontract and shall specifiy the
name and address of the subcontractor. Any Employer
who gives such notice and requires the subcontractor to
agree to comply with and observe the provisions of
Subsection B hereof with respect to job site work and
Subsection C hereof with respect to work performed
other than at the job site shall not be liable for any
delinquency by such subcontractor in the payment of
any wages, fringe, benefits or contributions provided
herein except as provided hereinafter.
If thereafter any subcontractor shall become delin-
quent in the payment or meeting of the obligations set
forth above, the Union shall promptly give written
notice thereof to the Employer and Subcontractor
specifying the nature and amount of such delinquency.
More than one such notice may be given with respect
to delinquencies. If such notice is given, the Employer
shall withhold the amount claimed to be delinquent out
of any sums due and owing by the Employer to such
Subcontractor and shall pay and satisfy therefrom the
amount of such delinquency by such Subcontractor as
follows:
If such Subcontractor does not dispute the existence
or amount of such delinquency, the Employer shall
forthwith pay the amount of such delinquencies to the
person or fund entitled thereto. Any dispute as to the
existence or amount of such delinquency shall be
settled by the Union and Subcontractor as provided in
Section 15 hereof and the Employer shall pay to the
person or funds entitled thereto the amount of such
delinquency as so determined and costs incurred.
The Employer shall not be liable for any such
delinquency occurring more than sixty (60) days prior
to the receipt of such written notice from the Union.
E. Threats Made by Respondent in Asserting its
Claim to the Work in Dispute
In December 1969, Dallas Craig, president and business
agent of Respondent, learned that Bigge's Trucking
Division was transporting girders in San Francisco from
Pier 42 to the Crystal Street project. He considered this to
be "a complete violation of my agreement [the AGC
contract]." On December 14, 1969, he telephoned Glen C.
Holtwick, assistant manager of Bigge Trucking at his
residence. Craig told Holtwick that he believed his
company was in violation of the current AGC contract;
that he had observed members of the Teamsters Locals 70
and 85 performing this work; that this work belonged to
members of his Union, and if Holtwick did not replace the
drivers from Locals 70 and 85 with his men by 8 o'clock
the following morning, he would have to picket at the pier.
Holtwick replied that he did not know that his company
had a contract with Respondent; that both Bigge Crane
and Rigging and Bigge Trucking were involved in this
project. He asked Craig to postpone picketing or taking
any action until he returned to his office and to notify
Holtwick before any picketing was instituted. Craig agreed
to do this. Craig then called a representative of the
California Trucking Association who agreed to look into
the matter.
The next action taken by Craig was the filing of a
grievance against Bigge Crane and Rigging Company and
against general contractor Hensel Phelps on December 29,
1969. A grievance meeting was conducted on February 16,
1970. Respondent charged that Bigge Crane and Rigging
and Hensel Phelps had violated Sections 3 B, 30 A, 30 C,
and 30 D of the construction master agreement dealing
with subcontracting. At this meeting, Craig stated that
section 30, paragraph C, of the contract was either valid
and meant what it said or it was not, and the matter should
be adjudicated at that time and at that place; that if Bigge
attempted to bring the girders in from Pier 42 (without
complying with the contract), Respondent would picket.
At this meeting, Holtwick stated that he had no
knowledge of the contract with Local 216 and was
operating within the framework of the CTA agreement.
Prior to this meeting and on February 16, 1970, the
charge in Case 20-CE-65 was filed. In view of this, the
board of adjustment hearing the grievance decided to defer
the determination of its merits until the National Labor
Relations Board has completed the processing of the
pending charge alleging a violation of Section 8(e) of the
Act.
On March 17, 1970, at a meeting in Sacramento,
California, Craig advised Donald Jeffers, director of labor
relations for AGC, that Bigge Company had a contract to
haul girders to the China Basin project, and if they
attempted to move girders from the pier in San Francisco
to the China Basin job, Respondent would strike them.
Jeffers stated that Bigge Crane and Rigging Company was
a division of Bigge Drayage Company and was separate
from the drayage division. Craig stated that as far as he
was concerned they were the same company.
On April 10, 1970, Craig called Jeffers and informed him
that if anyone hauled the disputed girders with trucks not
driven by members of Respondent, Respondent was going
to strike the China Basin job.2 On the same morning, Craig
called George Williams, manager of Castcon, and told him
that Respondent had a difference of opinion with Bigge in
regard to the transportation of the structural girders. He
asked that Castcon use its influence or advise Bigge that it
was a serious situation and should be resolved. Williams
asked Craig what would happen if the controversy were
not resolved, and Craig replied that it might be necessary
to picket the off-load point in San Francisco (where the
girders were transported by barge by Castcon). The crane
used to transfer the girders from the barge to trucks of
Bigge Trucking was owned or rented and operated by
Castcon.
Williams told Craig that he would contact Bigge and find
out what the problem was and what they were doing about
it. Craig also asked Williams as to the date that the
prestressed concrete would be shipped by barge to the pier
in San Francisco, and Williams told him that he could not
give the exact date when the large girders would be shipped
to the San Francisco pier.
2 Craig testified that he did not threaten to close the job down but "to no proof of Craig's words by his action, but I am inclined to the view and
strike it," and that he had reference to or stated that he would strike "just find that he did not specify any limitations on his threatened picketing at
that portion that would apply to me " Since no picketing occurred there is the China Basin job
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Craig testified that he made no statement to the effect
that he would picket Castcon but that he said "in the event
they were to unload the sections in San Francisco by barge,
that we would probably have to strike them." Again, it is
not clear what employes Craig was referring to with the
word "them". Craig testified he was threatening "to put a
picket line around Bigge on the ground, not on the dock." I
find that Craig did not so delineate the area and object of
his threatened picketing and that the normal import of the
words used was that the operation of the transfer of the
girders from the barge to Bigge's trucks would be picketed.
Also in April 1970, Craig had a meeting with Holtwick
and Attorney Fastiff regarding the dispute and stated to
them that he had informed general contractor Caputo and
contractor Castcon that he was going to picket the job
unless Bigge signed a local agreement with him-a short
form agreement-and employed his men to transport the
girders to the China Basinjobsite.3
F. Is the Subcontracting Clause Designed To
Preserve Unit Work?
A contract violates Section 8(e) of the Act when it
specifies and regulates conditions for subcontracting for the
object of regulating the labor relations of a subcontractor, a
secondary employer. On the other hand, it does not fall
within the proscriptions of Section 8(e) where it specifies
and regulates the conditions of subcontracting for the
object of preserving the work of the bargaining unit of the
primary employer. Thus, which is the objective of
Respondent? Is the work in dispute unit work or work of
another bargaining unit?
Most of the contract clauses on subcontracting consid-
ered in connection with Section 8(e) of the Act fall
generally into two classes: (1) union signatory and (2)
union standards. The first precludes subcontracting with
any employer who is nonunion -and is directed at the
identity of the secondary employer and at his labor
relations . The second precludes subcontracting with any
employer whose wages, etc., do not meet union standards
and can be motivated by (a) an objection to a subcontrac-
tor because of his identity and labor relations (secondary)
or (2) by an effort to protect unit work by making the
subcontracting of it of no economic advantage to the
employer (primary).
The General Counsel and Charging Party contend that
Respondent's motive is both to regulate the labor relations
of subcontractors and to require them to employ members
of and sign a contract with Respondent.
The AGC contract sets forth its coverage of the work of
the bargaining unit as "all work of the Employer falling
within the established jurisdiction of the Union, including,
but not limited to, building construction, heavy, highway
and engineering construction and the performance of work
in the classifications listed in Supplement No. 2," (section
I B of the AGC contract). Classifications listed in the
contract include, among others, drivers of dump trucks,
transit mix trucks, water trucks, vacuum trucks, and
transport trucks; in 1968, Respondent succeeded in adding
3 This incident is not alleged in the complaint, but it is corroborative of
statements I have found that Craig made on other occasions, which are
the following classifications to the contract ; double
gooseneck transport , seven or more axles , and heavy duty
transport tiller man , which are classifications used in the
hauling of heavy prestressed concrete.
The work of employees in bargaining units represented
by Respondent consists generally of hauling dirt, rock, and
debris on the jobsite and to points off the jobsite , and the
hauling of asphalt , concrete , and other materials and
supplies from one point on the jobsite to another point and
in some instances both from and to points off the jobsite.
But, none of the employers who are parties to the AGC
contract with Respondent and therefore none of the
bargaining units represented by Respondent have hauled
heavy prestressed concrete girders as is involved in the
instant case . And, in fact , none of said employers have the
necessary equipment for such work. This work has
traditionally been performed by bargaining units repre-
sented by over-the-road and cartage teamster unions. In
the instant case the work was being performed by members
of Teamsters Locals 70 and 85 who are in a bargaining unit
covered by the master freight agreement and supplements
thereto negotiated between these unions and the California
Trucking Association, with which Bigge Trucking is
affiliated.
Respondent cites as precedent for its claim to the
disputed work the fact that in 1968 and 1969 an Owl
Trucking Company did this type of work in Contra Costa
and Alameda Counties, across the bay from San Francisco,
under the terms of the AGC contract pursuant to an
agreement with Teamsters Local 315, a union which
represents both construction teamster units and general
teamster units.
Owl Trucking Company was based in southern Califor-
nia and its employees were represented by Teamsters Local
692 in Long Beach , California . It had a subcontract to
transport large girders from Castcon 's plant in Richmond,
California , to rapid transit sites. On June 7 , 1968, it entered
into an agreement with Teamsters Local 315 providing that
the agreement was "for movement of approximately 158
girders;" that it was an "agreement without local or
contract precedent;" and that "no precedent is set by this
agreement and it applies only to this job consisting of 158
girders." The agreement provided that Owl Trucking
Company would employ at least one man from Local 315
for each man from Local 692 and that men from Local 315
would be paid 40 hours per week at the AGC contract
scale . I find that this agreement and job does not constitute
history or precedent for the performance of the work in
dispute by construction teamsters.
I find that the work in dispute is not "unit work" of the
bargaining unit represented by Respondent , nor is it "fairly
claimable" as such work. It is work being performed by
another bargaining unit represented by another union.
The work in dispute is off-site hauling; thus, the proviso
to Section 8(e) excluding on-site construction work is not
applicable.
Section 30C and lB of the AGC contract appear to
regulate subcontracting of unit work only, that is, work
falling within the established jurisdiction of Respondent.
alleged in the complaint
BLDG. MATERIAL & CONSTRUCTION TEAMSTERS NO. 216 1053
But the terms "work covered by this agreement" and
"falling within the established jurisdiction of the Union"
are very general and indefinite. Based on Craig's interpre-
tation of the intent of the provisions of the contract and
based on actions taken by Respondent to implement the
subcontracting provisions of the contract, I find that
Respondent's motive in Section 30C is both to regulate the
labor relations of other employers and, in certain circum-
stances, to require that at least 50 percent of their
employees be members of Respondent. It is both "union
standards" and "union signatory."4 Section 30C and
Section 30D to the extent that it implements the illegal
provisions of Section 30C, are designed to cause employers
to cease or refrain from doing business with other persons
who do not meet the requirements set forth therein and
therefore contravene Section 8(e) of the Act.5
The AGC contract involved herein was entered into on
August 9, 1968, which date is well outside the 6-month
limitation period from the filing of the charge herein, as
prescribed in Section 10(b) of the Act. But the Board holds
that each act or incident of enforcement of such contract
constitutes a renewed "entering into."6
Respondent's efforts to enforce compliance with provi-
sions of this contract occurred on December 14, 1969,
when Craig contracted Glen C. Holtwick of Bigge
Trucking; on December 29, 1969, when a grievance was
instituted by Respondent against Bigge Crane and Rigging
and against general contractor Hensel Phelps over the
alleged violation of the AGC contract; on February 16,
1970, when said grievance was heard; on March 17 and
April 10, 1970, when Craig called Donald Jeffers, director
of labor relations for AGC on the matter; and in April
1970 when Craig met with Holtwick and Attorney Fastiff. I
find that the contract was "entered into" within 6 months
of the filing of the charge herein.
The complaint alleges only the actions taken by
Respondent on December 14 and 29, 1969, as renewed
"entering into" the contract ; however, the statements made
by Respondent on February 16, March 17, and April 10 to
Jeffers and in April 1970 to Holtwick and Fastiff to bring
about compliance with the contract were fully litigated as
such and constitute further acts of "entering into."
Section 8(e) makes it an unfair labor practice for any
labor organization or any employer to enter into a
contract, expressed or implied, whereby such employer
agrees to cease or refrain from doing business with "any
other person." In the instant case the "other person" whose
labor relations Respondent is attempting to regulate is
Bigge's Trucking Division, which Respondent contends is
not "another person."
Although I find that the contract terms and Respon-
dent's interpretation of them as explained by Craig make
them applicable to all other employers and persons and
therefore I find them to contravene Section 8(e) of the Act
for these reasons; nevertheless , I find Respondent's
application of the contract terms in the instant case to
Bigge 's Trucking Division to be for the object of causing
Bigge Crane and Rigging Company to cease doing business
with "another person ." Bigge Crane and Rigging and
Bigge 's Trucking Division are divisions of Bigge Drayage
Company. Yet, each constitutes a different "person" within
the meaning of Section 8(e) of the Act. The two divisions
are engaged in separate businesses , have separate equip-
ment and different employees and different supervision.
Labor relations for Bigge Crane and Rigging is handled by
the AGC and the labor consultant firm of Robert H.
Scarth . The CTA and Glen Holtwick , assistant manager of
Bigge 's trucking division , handle labor relations for that
division.?
G. Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act
It is also contended by the General Counsel and the
Charging Party that the statements made by Craig to
representatives of Bigge Trucking, Bigge Crane and
Rigging , Hensel Phelps and Castcon to induce Bigge
Trucking to compliance with the AGC and hire members
of Respondent constituted threats, coercion , and restraint
for an object proscribed in Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
I find that statements made to Jeffers, director of labor
relations for the AGC, and therefore the bargaining
representative of Bigge Crane and Rigging Company, and
Hensel Phelps Construction Company , were made to him
as representative and agent of these companies to induce
actions by these companies . Both companies were mem-
bers of the AGC. There is no evidence as to Caputo's
membership in the AGC.
I find that Craig's threats to picket at the pier in San
Francisco and to "strike the job," made to Holtwick, a
representative of Bigge Trucking, and to Jeffers, a
representative of Bigge Crane and Riggings and Hensel
Phelps Construction Company and to Williams of Castcon,
Inc., constituted threats, coercion , and restraint of persons
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
for an object of forcing or requiring Bigge 's Trucking
Division to assign the disputed work to employees who are
members of Respondent rather than employees who are
members of Teamsters Locals 70 and 85.
H. The Voluntary Adjustment of the Work Dispute
Respondent contends that the Act and the Board 's Rules
and Regulations require as a prerequisite to the issuance
and consideration of a complaint alleging a jurisdictional
dispute violative of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, that it be
shown that the unions involved are not complying with
either ( 1) a Board 's determination of the dispute made
pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, or (2) a voluntary
resolution of the dispute.
On September 17 and 18, 1970, Respondent entered into
an agreement with Teamsters Locals 70 and 85 setting
forth that Respondent "does not claim the work of hauling
concrete prestressed girders over public highways for
delivery to construction sites where such work is performed
4 Teamsters Local 294 (Island Dock Lumber, Inc), 145 NLRB 484, enfd
342 F 2d 18 (C A 2), Local 437, IBEW (National Electrical Contractors
Assn ), 180 NLRB No 32
5 Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No 728, 140 NLRB 1436
6 Sheet Metal Workers, Local 216 (Associated Pipe and Fitting Mfgrs),
172 NLRB No 6
7 Los Angeles Newspaper Guild, Local 69 (Hearst Corp), 185 NLRB No
25, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Washington-
Baltimore Local (Hearst Corp), 185 NLRB No 26
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by Bigge Drayage Company and is assigned to employees
who are members of, or represented by, Teamsters Local
70 or Local 85," and "that employees of Bigge Drayage
Company who are members of, or represented by,
Teamsters Local 70 or Local 85 are assigned , and are
entitled to perform the work described above for Bigge
Drayage Company." Respondent further contends that as
an alternative to a voluntary resolution of the dispute, the
Board should have conducted a hearing pursuant to
Section 10(k) of the Act making an award of the work in
dispute before issuance of complaint.
The General Counsel contends that irrespective of the
agreement between the unions , Respondent continues to
claim the work involved as falling within its jurisdiction
and coming within its contract with Bigge Crane and
Rigging Company ; that, therefore , the agreement did not
resolve the dispute . The General Counsel also contends
that in addition to a resolution of the dispute by voluntary
means or by a Section 10(b) hearing as prerequisites to a
complaint , the Board 's Rules and Regulations also provide
that if the parties "have agreed upon methods for the
voluntary adjustment of the dispute," the Regional
Director shall defer action upon the pending charges; and
"if it appears to the Regional Director that the dispute has
not been adjusted in accordance with such agreed-upon
methods and that an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act is occurring or
has occurred, he may issue a complaint." The General
Counsel contends that the parties have an agreed-upon
method for the adjustment of the dispute set forth in the
contract between Respondent and the AGC and its
members and that this procedure has not been utilized.
The AGC to which Respondent and Bigge Crane and
Rigging are parties provides as follows on the matter of
jurisdictional disputes , Section 20:
There shall be no cessation of orr interference in the
work of an Employer by reason of a jurisdictional
dispute between the Union and a Union affiliated with
the AFL-CIO. Such disputes shall be settled directly
between the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and
the Union involved.
Bigge 's Trucking Division is not a party to this contract,
nor are Teamsters Locals 70 and 85. The master freight
agreement to which they are parties provides on jurisdic-
tional disputes as follows, article 30:
In the event that any dispute should apse between any
Local Unions, parties to this Agreement . . . and any
other Union, relating to jurisdiction over employees or
operations covered by such Agreements, the Employer
and the Local Unions agree to accept and comply with
the decision or settlement of the Unions or Union
bodies which have the authority to determine such
dispute. . .
Thus, although Respondent and Teamsters Locals 70
and 85, and Bigge Crane and Rigging and Bigge Trucking
are not all parties to the same contract , the two contracts
do provide a means binding all parties for settling
jurisdictional disputes; the dispute could be submitted to
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and a resolu-
tion of the dispute by it would bind all parties . The unions
contend , however, that the dispute has been settled
between them by the agreement of September 17 and 18.
As there exists an agreed -upon method of settling
jurisdictional disputes , no Board determination pursuant to
Section 10(k) of the Act is required .8 An issue is whether or
not Respondent has in fact entered into a voluntary
adjustment of its jurisdictional dispute and has complied
therewith. The General Counsel and the Charging Party
contend that they have not, and further that irrespective of
whether it has or not , an order and remedy should issue to
cure the effects of illegal threats made by Respondent
during the dispute.
Respondent's agreement of September 17 and 18, 1970,
with Locals 70 and 85 clearly states that the work in
dispute is not claimed by Respondent and may be
performed by members of Locals 70 and 85. Yet, according
to the testimony of Respondent's business agent and
president , Dallas Craig , Respondent claims that this work,
nevertheless, comes under its AGC contract and that the
employees performing the work should receive wages,
fringe benefits , and other programs as specified in this
contract , whether they are members of Respondent, Locals
70 or 85, or whatever union.
I consider this position inconsistent with the agreement
of September 18; as long as Respondent claims that its
contract governs the wages and terms of employment of
employees performing the work in dispute, it is claiming
the work . A resolution of a jurisdictional dispute contem-
plates that one of the two contending unions shall have
sole and complete jurisdiction over the work in dispute,
including not only the placement of its members on the
work but the representation of them as to wages and
working conditions.
I find that the procedure that exists for the voluntary
resolution of the jurisdictional disputes herein was not
utilized to reach a complete resolution of the dispute. Thus,
I deny Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint in
Case 20-CD-294 predicated on the contention that certain
prerequisites to issuance of such a complaint have not been
met.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
Those activities of the Respondent , set forth in section
III, found to constitute unfair labor practices , occurring in
connection with the business of the employer as set forth in
section 1 , have a close , intimate , and substantial relation to
trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes, burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Bigge Drayage Company and its divisions, Bigge
Crane and Rigging Company and Bigge's Trucking
Division , are employers engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and 8 (b)(4) of the Act.
2. Hensel Phelps Construction Company, Caputo
Construction Company, and Castcon , Inc., are employers
8 Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers International Union, 119 NLRB 1345
BLDG. MATERIAL & CONSTRUCTION TEAMSTERS NO. 216 1055
engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the
meaning of Sections 2(7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
3. Building Material & Construction Teamsters Union
Local No. 216, Teamsters Local 70, and Teamsters Local
No. 85 are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. By entering into sections 30 C and 30 D of the AGC
contract whereby employer-parties thereto have agreed to
cease and refrain from doing business with certain other
persons as described herein, Respondent has engaged in an
unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(e) of the Act.
5. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Bigge
Crane and Rigging Company and the Trucking Division,
Bigge Drayage Company, and Hensel Phelps Construction
Company, and Castcon, Inc., for an object of forcing or
requiring Bigge's Trucking Division to assign the work of
hauling prestressed concrete girders over highways and
streets in the counties of San Francisco and San Mateo to
employees who are members of Respondent rather than to
employees who are members of Teamsters Locals 70 and
85, Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice in
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, it shall be recommended that they cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act. On the basis
of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and the entire record herein, I recommend that, pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, the Board issue the following: 9
ORDER
Building Material & Construction Teamsters Union
Local No. 216, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 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
is 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
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Entering into and giving effect to sections 30 C and
30 D of the construction master agreement entered into
with the Northern and Central California Chapter of the
Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.
(b) Threatening, coercing, and restraining Bigge Crane
and Rigging Company, the Trucking Division, Bigge
Drayage Company and Hensel Phelps Construction
Company, and Castcon, Inc., for an object of forcing or
requiring said trucking division to assign the work of
hauling prestressed concrete girders over highways and
streets in the counties of San Francisco and San Mateo to
employees who are members of Respondent rather than to
employees who are members of Teamsters Locals 70 and
85 or any other labor organization.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places at its business office and
meeting halls, including all places where notices to its
members are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of
Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Deliver or mail signed copies of said notice to the
Regional Director for Region 20, for posting by Bigge
Crane and Rigging Company and the trucking division,
Bigge Drayage Company, and Hensel Phelps Construction
Company, and Castcon, Inc., if willing, at locations where
notices to employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt by Respondent of
a copy of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply
herewith."
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
11 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "