Boyd-Mulford Construction Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1986

277 N.L.R.B. 1631 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

BOYD-MULFORD CONSTRUCTION 1631
Boyd-Mulford Construction Co, and Metropolitan
District Council of Carpenters of Philadelphia
and Vicinity . Case 4-CA-14732
13 January 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS DENNIS, JOHANSEN, AND
BABSON
On 30 September 1985 Administrative Law
Judge Karl H. Buschmann issued the attached deci-
sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief,' and the General Counsel filed an an-
swering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Boyd-Mul-
ford Construction Co., Ardmore, Pennsylvania, its
i The Respondent has requested oral argument The request is denied
as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties
a We correct below several factual errors in the judge's decision that
do not affect our affirmance of his finding that the Union has satisfied the
requirements to support its information request and his ultimate conclu-
sion that the Respondent refused to furnish information to the Union in
violation of Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
The judge's statement, in par 5 of the section of his decision entitled
"Findings of Fact," that the Union discovered that the Respondent par-
ticipated in a project in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania , is inaccurate, as
there is no evidence the Respondent participated in the project. In the
same paragraph, the judge incorrectly stated that the Union found out
that'Felber Studios had "subcontracted" with a nonunion employer to in-
stall the panels at King of Prussia. Although Union President Coryell tes-
tified that without contradiction he learned that a nonunion employer
which was "working for Felber" or "somehow connected" with that
company performed the panel work, there is no specific evidence that the
Employer subcontracted with Felber Studios
In the first paragraph of the section of his-decision entitled, "Analysis,"
the judge incorrectly stated that "[c]arpenters employed by the Respon-
dent" had in the past been involved in manufacturing "drive-it" panels
Although Union President Coryell testified generally that Carpenters-rep-
resented employees make "drive-it" panels and that carpenters employed
by other companies have performed such work, there is no specific evi-
dence the Respondent's carpenters manufactured "drive-it" panels
In par 5 of the same section, the judge erroneously stated that the
record shows the Union orally informed Respondent President Kelso that
it was concerned about the extent to which the Respondent's relationship
with S K Kelso and Felber Studios "impacted the existing [collective]
bargaining agreement " Union President Coryell evidently orally request-
ed from Kelso information concerning the identity of contractors and
type of work being performed at various jobsttes, and stated his concern
for "contractor compliance" with the collective-bargaining agreement in
its 26 June 1984 letter to the Respondent There is no evidence, however,
that the parties discussed the impact of the Respondent' s alleged relation-
ship with S K Kelso and Felber Studios on the contract
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Order.
Susan Stahl and William Slack, Esqs., for the General
Counsel.
Thomas J. McGoldrick and John J. McAleese, Ens. (McA-
leese, McGoldrick & Susanin), of King of Prussia, Penn-
sylvania, for the Respondent.
William J. Einhorn, Esq. (Sagot & Jennings), of Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
KARL H. BUSCHMANN, Administrative Law Judge.
This case was tried in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 19
February 1985. The charge was filed by the Union, the
Metropolitan District Council of Carpenters of Philadel-
phia and Vicinity, on 28 November 1984 and a complaint
issued on 9 January 1985. The issue is whether the Re-
spondent, Boyd-Mulford Construction Company, violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act when it failed to
provide the Union with information regarding its rela-
tionship with Felber, Inc. and S. K. Kelso Sons, Inc.
On the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of the
briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Company, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
Boyd-Mulford Construction Co. is a Pennsylvania cor-
poration located at 10 Ardmore Avenue, Ardmore,
Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the construction of
commercial buildings. It is admittedly an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
The Union, Metropolitan District Council of Carpen-
ters of Philadelphia and Vicinity, is admittedly a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
The Respondent has recognized the Union for its car-
penter employees since 1964 when it became a member
of the General Building Contractors Association
(GBCA). The current contract between GBCA and the
Union is effective from 24 May 1983 until 30 April 1986 ,
and covers the following unit: "all persons, whether
Journeymen, Apprentices or Foremen, who perform any
work within the jurisdiction of the Council and of the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, including but not limited to carpentry work, lay-out
work, millright work, wharf and dock building work,
pile driving work or hardwood floor laying work on any
project or job on which an Employer holds a contract."
(Jt. Exh. 2.) Up to 10 union members are employed by
Boyd-Mulford. They do "general carpentry work, in-
cluding metal studs, dry wall, drive-it panel installation
and layout work etc.... Drive-it panel is a system of
exterior panel which includes metal studs, sheathing, in-
sulation and a thin plaster coating. . . . Since 1980, when
the Lathers Union merged with the Carpenters Union,
277 NLRB No. 180
1632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union has claimed jurisdiction over the manufacture
of wire lath as well as the installation of drive -it panels.
During the late summer in 1983, Harry A. Short, the
Union's business agent , had learned that Boyd -Mulford
was the general contractor at the Bell Telephone jobsite
in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania (tr. 12, 50). When he in-
spected the jobsite, he observed that drive-it panels
would be installed (Tr. 12). As a result of his conversa-
tion with the superintendent on the jobsite, he also
learned that drive-it panels were manufactured by non-
union employees of Felber Studios, Inc. The Union de-
cided to picket the jobsite to protest the nonunion work
done by Felber. Following an agreement by David
Kelso , the president of Boyd-Mulford, to meet with
Union President Edward Coryell, the picketing was dis-
continued . During the subsequent meeting , attended by
Union Representative Harry Short, Edward Coryell, the
union president , David Kelso, Respondent's president,
and Ned Hoffner, one of the firm's owners, the Union
discovered that Boyd-Mulford would erect the panels
which Felber Studios had manufactured (Tr. 16). It also
learned that Felber Studios was a casting shop , and that
they were "just getting into" the manufacture of drive-it
panels but that it would not be engaged in the manufac-
ture of drive-it panels on a regular , full-time basis. Its
president, David Kelso , also made it clear to the union
representatives that Felber was a nonunion shop and
would stay that way, even if the Union regarded that
work to be within the purview of its jurisdiction (Tr.
58).
The Union next discovered that Boyd-Mulford was in-
volved in a project in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania (Tr.
11). From the developer, known as Don Pasquale, and
the superintendent on the construction site , the Union
learned that the drive-it panels at the site had been manu-
factured by Felber Studios. When the Union attempted
to ascertain who would install the panels , Kelso refused
to give that information. The Union ultimately found out
that Felber had subcontracted with a nonunion employer
to install the panels. The Union picketed the King of
Prussia jobsite and Felber Studios after it learned the
panels were manufactured by Felber's nonunion employ-
ees and that the installation of the panels had been sub-
contracted to a nonunion company. Again, the picketing
was discontinued after the developer had assured the
Union that he would give them serious consideration on
his next job.
Through other channels of information , notably the
Dunn & Bradstreet reports, the Union learned that Boyd-
Mulford and Felber Studios used the same address and
operated out of the same facility. In addition, the Union
believed that David Kelso was not only the chief execu-
tive officer of Felber Studios and Boyd-Mulford, but also
that both firms had common stockholders and corporate
officers. The union representatives visited Felber Studios
and observed employees manufacturing plaster compo-
nents, but he saw no employees actually working on
drive-it panels.
Not only was the Union concerned that Felber Studios
performed carpentry work with its nonunion employees,
but it also discovered a third operation, known as S. K.
Kelso & Sons, which engaged in some form of carpentry
work and which was related to the Respondent, Boyd-
Mulford. Like Felber Studios, S. K. Kelso had offices in
the same address as Boyd-Mulford. The principal officer
of Felber, David Kelso, was also believed to be the prin-
cipal officer of S. K. Kelso & Sons. Through the Dunn
& Bradstreet reports, the Union ascertained that Kelso &
Sons is in the business of commercial and residential lath-
ing and plastering. This type of work was considered by
the Union as union work.
The Union has attempted on several occasions to con-
tact David Kelso in an effort to obtain additional infor-
mation on the various projects in which either Felber or
S. K. Kelso & Sons were involved and in which employ-
ees performed lath, plaster, or other type of carpentry
work. Kelso has disclosed some information to the Union
which indicates that employees of S. K. Kelso & Sons or
Felber perform that type of work on occasion, but Kelso
has generally resisted any further disclosure, as for exam-
ple the interrelationship between the several operations
and the precise nature of work performed by them.
Union President Coryell generally testified that the
Union did not know whether any union members had
manufactured drive-it panels for the Respondent. He
stated that in many cases carpenters are employed in the
manufacture of drive-it panels. He named several compa-
nies who employ carpenters in that capacity. He attempt-
ed to obtain information from the Respondent to deter-
mine whether carpenters had been employed to manufac-
ture drive-it panels and to what extent, but he has had no
results as of the date of the hearing. Respondent's testi-
mony generally confirmed that Felber manufactures exte-
rior wall systems, including drive-it panels, and that the
installation of such panels has been subcontracted. Fur-
thermore, Respondent also explained that S. K. Kelso
employees perform plaster work, including lath. In order
to learn more about the relationship between the compa-
nies, the Union sent to Boyd-Mulford formal requests for
information (Jt. Exhs. 3 and 4). The Union's requests for
information, dated 26 June 1984, consist of identical
questionnaires, one pertaining to Felber and the other to
S. K. Kelso & Sons. They are each 13 pages long and
contain more than 79 questions. In the initial paragraphs,
the Union states as follows:
Dear Sir:
We have recently learned and have reason to be-
lieve that Boyd-Mulford Construction Co. is affili-
ated or otherwise related to [S. K. Kelso or] Felber,
Inc., a firm which does not have a collective bar-
gaining relationship with our labor organization.
As I know you can well appreciate, the recent
influx of non-union contractors and double-breasted
companies may have a significant impact on the
unionized construction industry and could hamper
our efforts to police contractor compliance with ex-
isting collective bargaining agreements. To enable
us to satisfy our obligation to service and protect
the employment rights of our members, it is neces-
sary that this organization request that you prompt-
ly answer the following questions:
BOYD-MULFORD CONSTRUCTION 1633
When the Respondent failed to respond to the Union's
requests , William Einhorn, attorney for the Union, sent
the Union's formal and final demand, dated 22 August,
stating, inter alia (Jt. Exh. 5):
By separate letters dated June 26, 1984, the Met-
ropolitan District Council requested that you pro-
vide detailed responses to approximately 79 ques-
tions relating to the relationship between Felber,
Inc. and Boyd-Mulford Construction Co., as well as
approximately 79 questions regarding the relation-
ship between S. K. Kelso Sons, Inc. and Boyd-Mul-
ford Construction Co. As was explained in those
letters, answers to those questions were necessary to
enable the District Council to satisfy its obligation
to service and protect the employment rights of its
members and otherwise police your compliance
with the terms of the collective bargaining agree-
ment currently in effect by and between the District
Council and Boyd-Mulford Construction Co. As of
that date of this letter, you have chosen not to re-
spond in any fashion to that request for information.
As you may or may not be aware, the National
Labor Relations Act, specifically Section 8(a)(5) of
that Law, requires that employers supply labor or-
ganizations representing their employees with infor-
mation that is necessary for those Unions to carry
out their statutory obligations to represent those
employees in their capacity as the exclusive collec-
tive bargaining representative.
Boyd-Mulford's attorney, John J. McAleese Jr., re-
sponded by letter of 30 August (Jt. Exh. 6):
Dear Bill:
We represent Boyd-Mulford Construction Co.
Your letter of August 22, 1984 and its enclosures
were referred to us for review.
In order that we may advise our client respecting
this matter, please provide us with a full and com-
plete statement of the factual basis for the extensive
and burdensome questions that have been addressed
to it.
The Union responded as follows (Jt. Exh. 7):
Dear Jack:
In response to your letter of August 30, 1984,
please be advised that the Metropolitan District
Council possesses certain information which leads it
to believe that Boyd-Mulford Construction Co. has
sought to evade its obligation under the
GBCA/District Council collective bargaining
agreement through the use of related business enti-
ties. Answers to the questions posed by the District
Council to Boyd-Mulford regarding its relationship
with S. K. Kelso Sons, Inc., and Felber, Inc. are
necessary to enable the District Council to police
Boyd-Mulford's compliance with the terms of its
collective bargaining agreement.
I trust that the long overdue response to these le-
gitimate questions will be forthcoming within the
next two weeks. If answers are not received within
that period of time, the District Council will have
no alternative but to file appropriate charges of
unfair labor practices with the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
Respondent's attorney, referring to the Union's claim
to possess certain information in support, of its request,
wrote to the Union on 28 September (Jt. Exh. 8);
Please provide us with a full and complete state-
ment of the information to which you refer-which
is in substance the same request I made in my
August 30, 1984 letter to you-so that we may
advise our client.
The Union, informing the Respondent by letter of 13 Oc-
tober 1984 that it had no intention of engaging in "a
paper battle," indicated its intention to file charges with
the Board (Jt. Exh. 9).
Analysis
The record, as summarized above, briefly shows that a
collective-bargaining agreement exists between the Union
and the Respondent. Two other operations, Felber Stu-
dios and S. K. Kelso, are engaged in the type of work
which the Union believed to be related to the work per---
formed by the Respondent. Felber Studios is engaged in
the manufacture of plaster products, including exterior
wall panels and drive-it systems. S. K. Kelso employees
perform plastering work, including the installation of
lath. Carpenters employed by the Respondent, as well as
those employed by other companies, have in the past
been involved in the manufacture and installation of
drive-it panels and wire lathing. The record further
shows that the Union had reason to believe that Felber
Studios and S. K. Kelso are related to Respondent's op-
eration by common ownership and officers and have the
same base of operation. The Union has attempted to
obtain additional information about the precise nature of
the work performed by these operations, as well as their
interrelationship with the Respondent. In this effort the
Union visited construction sites, met with Respondent's
owner, and researched publications such as the Dunn &
Bradstreet reports. Respondent, however, has refused to,
provide the Union with any additional information. Re-
spondent's president has'stated that Felber Studios and S.
K. Kelso are nonunion and would stay that way.
According to the General Counsel, the Union has a le-
gitimate purpose in requesting the information for the
purpose of policing its agreement with Boyd-Mulford.
The Union believed that these operations constituted a
single employer and that the Respondent may have been
evading the agreement by a practice known as "double-
breasting." Respondent's failure to provide the Union
with the requested information constituted, according to
the General Counsel, a failure to bargain in good faith.
Respondent, on the other hand, submits that the two op-
erations, Felber Studios and S. K. Kelso, were not en-
gaged in carpenters' work and that no relationship exist-
ed between Respondent's unit work and the work per-
formed by the two companies. Accordingly, employees
1634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the respective companies were not improperly ex-
cluded from the unit of Respondent's carpenters.
In analyzing this issue, it must initially be recognized
that disclosure of relevant information is integral to the
bargaining process. The Supreme Court in NLRB v.
Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967), held that an
employer's duty to furnish relevant information to the
union is particularly important in its effort to police and
administer the collective -bargaining agreement . In this
regard, the Board has consistently applied "the discov-
ery-type" standard, which permits a liberal definition of
relevancy. The request should be related to the union's
function as bargaining representative and the information
sought should be reasonably necessary for the union to
perform that function. NLRB v. Item Co., 220 F.2d 956
(5th Cir. 1955). Information relating to wages, hours, and
working conditions of bargaining unit employees has a
presumption of relevancy, but information concerning
employees and employers outside the bargaining unit re-
quires a showing of relevancy to the union's perform-
ance. Press Democrat Publishing Co. v. NLRB, 629 F.2d
1320, 1324 (9th Cir. 1980); Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. NLRB,
347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965). The union must show "that
the information is relevant to investigations of contract
violations, and that there is a reasonable basis for further
investigation." NLRB v. Associated General Contractors,
633 F.2d 766, 771 (9th Cir. 1980). An employer is obli-
gated to provide information with potential or probable
relevance to union representation of employees in the ap-
propriate bargaining unit. The Board considers all the
circumstances of the case when determining if the union
has established relevance. Bohemia, Inc., 272 NLRB 1128
(1984). The demonstration may be made by presenting
objective facts, or other circumstances which establishes
the relevance of the requested information . Id. When the
circumstances of the situation between the union and em-
ployer are reasonably calculated to put the employer on
notice of the relevance of the information, a union 's fail-
ure to spell out relevance with specificity does not fore-
close the right to receive the information. Brazo Electric
Power Cooperative, 241 NLRB 1016, 1018-1019 (1979),
enfd. 615 F.2d 1100 (5th Cir 1980); E. I. duPont & Co.,
271 NLRB 1153 (1984).
The Union has satisfied the requirements to support its
information request. It has informed the Employer of the
nature of the violation suspected; the Union had a factual
basis for its suspicion that a violation of its bargaining re-
lationship occurred; and the Union has requested infor-
mation relevant to its objective. Contrary to Respond-
ent's suggestion, the Union did not possess sufficient in-
formation relating to the Felber and S. K. Kelso enter-
prises which would preclude the applicability of Boyd-
Mulford 's bargaining agreement with the carpenters,
even assuming the three companies constitute a "single
employer." To the contrary, if it is assumed that the
three operations constitute a single employer , the record
indicates that the work of Boyd-Mulford's carpenters
might well encompass some of the work performed by
the employees of Felber and S. K. Kelso, albeit on an
intermittent basis. But that is precisely what the request-
ed information is designed to elicit.
In its requests for information, the Union informed the
Respondent in writing that it had "reason to believe that
Boyd-Mulford Construction Co. is affiliated or otherwise
related to Felber" and S. K. Kelso, and that it was con-
cerned about the "influx of non-union contractors and
double breasted Companies" and their impact on the
unionized construction industry and its efforts to police
the existing bargaining agreement. In subsequent letters
to the Respondent, the Union again expressed its concern
to the Respondent about the relationship of Boyd-Mul-
ford with Felber and S. K. Kelso, its obligation to serv-
ice and protect the employment rights of its members,
and its duty to police the existing bargaining relationship.
The Union also informed the Respondent that it had cer-
tain information which led it to believe that Boyd-Mul-
ford had sought to evade its contractual obligation
through the use of related business entities. In addition,
the record shows that the Union orally informed David
Kelso, Respondent's president, that it was concerned
about Respondent's relationship with S. K. Kelso and
Felber and to what extent that relationship impacted the
existing bargaining agreement. In short, the Union had
made every effort to notify the Respondent of the rel-
evancy of its information request, because it believed
that the Respondent was evading the agreement by using
double-breasted operations.
The Union's concern in this regard is justified and sup-
ported by case law . As stated in NLRB v. Associated
General Contractors, 633 F.2d at 771• "Two or more em-
ployers, if they are `alter egos,' may be treated as a single
employer under the NLRB. If one is subject to a collec-
tive bargaining agreement, the other will be bound by
it." The Board defined a "double breasted" operation in
Walter N. Yoder & Sons, 270 NLRB 652 (1984), and held
that the refusal to disclose information relevant to that
issue constituted a violation of the Act.
For the Union to pursue its inquiry into a possible vio-
lation of the contract, it is necessary not only to elicit in-
formation as to the precise interrelationship of the vari-
ous operations, but also to find out the precise nature of
work performed by S. K. Kelso and Felber Studios. In
this regard, the Union had developed a factual basis for
its suspicion. It knew that all three firms were located at
the same address, and it appeared that David Kelso con-
trolled not only Boyd-Mulford, but also S. K. Kelso and
Felber Studios. Indeed, other members of the Kelso
family may also be involved in the operations of the
three companies. The Union learned from its on-site
interviews and inspections that the work which Felber
and S. K. Kelso employees performed might fall within
the jurisdiction of the Carpenters Union and that other
work which Felber or S. K. Kelso subcontracted could
have been done by Boyd-Mulford's employees. The
Union derived its information from interviews with
David Kelso, on-site inspections , and conversations with
employees, as well as trade publications, all of which are
legitimate sources. Walter N. Yoder & Sons, supra.
Finally it is also clear that the information request is
relevant to the Union's objective in policing its agree-
ment with Boyd-Mulford. It is clear that the information
sought is relevant to both the single employer issue and
BOYD-MULFORD CONSTRUCTION 1635
the question whether the work performed by S. K. Kelso
or Felber employees falls within the jurisdiction of the
contract between the Union and Boyd-Mulford. For ex-
ample, the requests to describe "the type of business" of
S. K. Kelso and Felber, or to identify the "skills" of
Kelso, Felber, and Respondent's employees, their "job
titles," "craft position" and "work," as well as the
"projects" of the three companies may be relevant to the
latter issue. Other questions such as the identity of
"owners," "stockholders," "supervisors," .. job superin-
tendents," "management ," "customers," "lessees," "sub-
contractors," "banks," and "accountants" are relevant to
the single employer issue . While some of the questions
may elicit repetitious responses and others may be too
specific in their application to the issues, it is significant
that the Respondent refused to answer any of the ques-
tions and, indeed, refused to make a bona fide attempt to
satisfy the Union's legitimate concern.
For the Respondent to argue at this juncture that
Felber's or S. K. Kelso's employees are shop employees
who work with plaster and who therefore cannot be
considered as "building and construction" employees or
that Felber and S. K. Kelso are separate entities and only
remotely related to the Respondent begs the question.
These are the very issues which the Union attempted to
resolve by making its request for information. The bar-
gaining process would be enhanced if the Respondent
furnished the information which would enable the Union
to make the appropriate assessment that the work of the
three operations was or was not related, or that three
companies did or did not constitute a single employer.
W-L Molding Co., 272 NLRB 1239 (1984). Indeed, the
record is not sufficiently conclusive on either issue to
make such a determination.
The Union's failure to file a grievance on this issue is
not a defense to Respondent's obligation to furnish the
information, particularly where, as here, the Respondent
has indicated unequivocally what the result of such a
grievance would be. NLRB v. Associated General Con-
tractors, supra, 633 F.2d at 768; Curtiss-Wright Corp. v.
NLRB, 347 F.2d 61, 69 (3d Cir. 1965).
I accordingly find, in agreement with the General
Counsel, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Boyd-Mulford Construction Co., is
admittedly an employer within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, Metropolitan District Council of Car-
penters of Philadelphia and vicinity, is admittedly a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. The Respondent, by failing to furnish the Union
with certain information, failed to bargain collectively
and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take affirmative action in order . to effectuate
the purposes of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record , I issue the following recommend-
ed"
ORDER
The Respondent, Boyd-Mulford Construction Compa-
ny, Ardmore, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Metropol-
itan District Council of Carpenters of Philadelphia and
Vicinity by refusing to furnish it with the information re-
quested by it in its letters to Boyd-Mulford Construction
Company, dated 26 June 1984.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, furnish the Union with the information
requested in the Union's letters to Boyd-Mulford, dated
26 June 1984.
(b) Post at its office and place of business in Ardmore,
Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix."2 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 4, after being signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
' If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions , and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec . 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
2 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al 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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Met-
ropolitan District Council of Carpenters of Philadelphia
and Vicinity by failing and refusing to furnish said labor
organization with the information requested in its letters
to us, dated 26 June 1984.
1636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere WE WILL, on request, furnish the Union with the in-
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of formation requested in its letters to us , 'dated 26 June
their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. 1984.
BOYD-MULFORD CONSTRUCTION CO.