Bricklayers, Masons And Plasterers, Local 2

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 434 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Bricklayers , Masons and Plasterers' International
Union of America, Bricklayers Local No. 2,
AFL-CIO ( Glenshaw Glass Company , Inc.) and
James R. Zollinger and Robert Zollinger, Jr.
Cases 6-CB- 1494-l and 6-CB- 1494-2
June 6, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULI OCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On January 6, 1969, Trial Examiner Milton Janus
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the
Trial Examiner's Decision, and Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a
supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby
adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that Respondent, Bricklayers, Masons
and Plasterers ' International Union of America,
Bricklayers Local No. 2, AFL-CIO, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MILTON JANUS, Trial Examiner: Charges were filed on
April 8, 1968, by James R. Zollinger and Robert
Zollinger, Jr., and a consolidated complaint based thereon
was issued on August 29, 1968. The complaint alleges that
the Respondent (also referred to at times as the Union or
as Local 2) violated Section 8(b)(IXA) and (2) of the Act
by causing Glenshaw Glass Company, Inc. (referred to
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
here as Glenshaw or the Company) to terminate the
employment of the charging parties because of their lack
of membership in Local 2.
I conducted a hearing in this matter at Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, on October 17, 1968. Briefs have been
received from the General Counsel and Respondent, and
have been fully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FACTS
Glenshaw is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
principal place of business at Glenshaw , Pennsylvania,
where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of glass
containers . During the 12-month period preceding the
issuance of the complaint , it shipped goods and products
valued in excess of $50,000 from its Glenshaw plant
directly to points outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania . I find that Glenshaw is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits , and I find , that it is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Background and Issues
In its production of glass, Glenshaw uses furnaces
which must be periodically taken out of service to be
rebricked. Glenshaw does not employ a permanent crew
for this purpose, but has for some years hired Edgar
Campbell as its foreman for the hiring and supervision of
bricklayers to do the job. Campbell is a member of
Bricklayers Local 28, Erie, Pennsylvania, who moves
about the country as a bricklayer foreman for different
employers.
Because production is lost when a furnace is out of
service, it is economically justifiable to pay bricklayers
premium pay for overtime and weekends in order to
expedite getting a furnace back into production. For
example, the Glenshaw job involved in this proceeding
required 19 working days, early in April 1968, to
complete. For it, Campbell needed 8 men working 10
hours per day, including Saturdays and Sundays. i
The Glenshaw plant is in Allegheny County, of which
Pittsburgh is the county seat. Local 2 has jurisdiction over
Allegheny County and nine townships of adjoining
Washington County. Although Glenshaw has not entered
into any formal arrangement or understanding with Local
2, it pays its bricklayers the current contractual wages and
abides by the working conditions and other provisions of
the agreement between the Union and union employers.
Campbell hired only union bricklayers. He selected his
own men, except for the job steward who is a working
' The normal working schedule within Local 2's jurisdiction was 7-1/2
hours per day, 5 days per week. The base wage rate payable in April 1968
(see G .C. Exh . 3(b)) was $6.07-1/2 per hour . Daily overtime and all
weekend work were paid at doubletime. Although the amount of pay
received on the Glenshaw job is not directly material to my discussion, I
mention it to show that these were well-paid , desirable jobs.
176 NLRB No. 54
BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS , LOCAL 2
bricklayer appointed by the Local's business
representative. Campbell made it a practice to hire men
whom he knew to be qualified and, within the area of
Local 2's jurisdiction he hired, as closely as he could, half
his crew from among Local 2 members, and half from
other Bricklayer Locals.'
Actual work on the Glenshaw furnace job began on
Tuesday, April 2, 1968. Besides Campbell, there were then
four men in the crew, Edwin Barris, the steward, another
Local 2 man, and two men from the Johnstown Local. To
begin work on Saturday, April 6, Campbell hired the
Zollingers, father and son, the charging parties here, and
members of Local 75, Greensburg, Pennsylvania, as well
as two additional men from Local 2. Thus, on April 6,
there were eight working bricklayers including the
steward, of whom four were from Local 2, and four from
sister Locals, plus Campbell from Local 28. On Sunday,
April 7, after a number of telephone conversations
involving Mincin , business representative of Local 2,
Steward Barris , Foreman Campbell, and Glenshaw Vice
President Cricks, Glenshaw laid off the Zollingers and
hired two men from Local 2.
The issues raised by the testimony and arguments in
this case are whether Mincin and/or Barris of Local 2
caused the termination of the two Zollingers because of
their nonmembership in Local 2, and whether Mincin, 2
days later, effectively withdrew his and Barris' former
objections to the employment of the Zollingers by
Glenshaw.
The Events Through Saturday, April 6
Since Glenshaw was under no contractual obligation to
use Local 2 as a hiring agent , Campbell, as its foreman,
could and did hire any union man he wanted, except as
this right was qualified by an obligation to hire the
particular person appointed by Local 2 as the steward,
and possibly by observance of the practice that half of all
bricklayers hired were to be from Local 2.
About a week before the job was scheduled to start,
Campbell had called Mincin to get his permission to work
10 hours per day, and to have Mincin appoint a steward.
When the job began on April 2, Campbell had not spoken
again with Mincin. On Saturday, April 6, the two
Zollingers went to work, together with two men from
Local 2. Barris , as was his right, asked to check their dues
books, which were in order. As he was looking at their
dues books, Barris said he did not think the Zollingers
would be able to work. The elder Zollinger said that
Campbell had hired them and that Barris should talk to
Campbell about the matter. That afternoon, Barris came
back to the elder Zollinger and collected $7 for himself
and his son, for work permits. Barris apparently said
nothing to Campbell about the two Zollingers not being
allowed to work.
Campbell and Mincin agree that they had a telephone
conversation Saturday evening , April 6. According to
Campbell's version, it was Mincin who called to tell him
that the Zollingers had to be laid off or the job would be
stopped. Mincin also complained, according to Campbell,
that Campbell was not abiding by the practice of having
an equal number of Local 2 members on the project.
Campbell pointed out to him that he had eight bricklayers
working, four of whom were from Local 2. Mincin
'There is a dispute over whether Local 2 did in fact have a 50-50 rule,
practice or understanding , and to what extent foremen were required to
adhere to it. The testimony on this point will be developed later.
435
insisted however, that Campbell himself should be counted
as an out-of-town bricklayer, thus making the count 5 to 4
in favor of the outside locals. Campbell told Mincin that a
foreman should not be counted in determining whether the
50-50 rule was being observed, but rather than argue more
about it, he asked Mincin to send him a Local 2 man to
begin work the next morning. Mincin continued to say
that Campbell would have to lay off the two men who had
begun work on Saturday who were not from Local 2,
because there were Local 2 men who were looking for
work. Mincin also told Campbell, according to Campbell,
that if he did not lay those two men off he would see that
Campbell never worked again in Local 2's jurisdiction.
Mincin's version of his telephone conversation with
Campbell is quite different. He agreed that he had called
Campbell at the latter's hotel, but insisted that he did it
only to return Campbell's previous call to him. According
to Mincin, Campbell said he was calling to get an
additional man from Local 2 for the Glenshaw job.
Mincin denied that he told Campbell that the job would
be shut down unless the Zollingers were laid off. Mincin
also claimed that he had said nothing about the so-called
50-50 rule of Local 2. Mincin denied, as a matter of fact,
that Local 2 had any such rule, and that it was the
practice of his local to allow men from the l l area locals
which surround Local 2's jurisdiction to work freely in
Allegheny County.
I credit Campbell's version of his telephone
conversation with Mincin on Saturday, April 6. First, it
seems improbable that Campbell should have called
Mincin to have him send out another Local 2 man the
next morning. That would have made a nine-man crew
which Campbell did not need. Also, Campbell had not
called Mincin before for Local 2 men (except for a
steward) and it seems unlikely that Campbell should
suddenly decide to let Mincin pick an unknown Local 2
man for him, when he had always previously done his own
selecting. Second, Barris did not deny the Zollingers'
testimony that Barris had told them on Saturday that they
would not be permitted to work there. In view of Barris'
opposition to the Zollingers' continuing to work, it is
likely that Barris alerted Mincin to get him to call
Campbell and to insist that Local 2 men be hired to
replace the Zollingers. Finally I discredit Mincin's version
of the conversation because I find that Local 2 did have a
50-50 rule in effect and that Campbell intended to abide
by it. Thus, the only way Mincin could deny that he had
anything to do with the termination of the Zollingers was
also to deny that he was trying to get around his local's
own practice of permitting half the men on a job in
Allegheny County to be members of sister locals.
The Events of Sunday, April 7
As with the testimony about the events of April 6, there
is disagreement between the witnesses for the General
Counsel and those for the Respondent as to what occurred
the next day. But the disagreement as to the facts mainly
revolves about whether Mincin, as well as Barris, was
responsible for the termination of the Zollingers. There is
no disagreement that Barris made it plain to Campbell
and to Cricks, Glenshaw's vice president, that he would
not work if the Zollingers worked, and that the other
members of Local 2 also made it plain that they would
not work without a steward. Barris turned this into a little
joke by saying that he could not work because he was
sick, but when Cricks asked him if he would get unsick if
the Zollingers were laid off, Barris said he would
436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
immediately feel better and, as a matter of fact, went
back to work with the other crew members as soon as the
Zollingers were fired.
The version of the General Counsel's witnesses: I see no
need to give a minutely detailed description of what took
place Sunday morning after the bricklayers assembled to
begin work. First off, Barris told Campbell that he would
stop the job if the Zollingers were not laid off. Cricks was
called at home and was told to come to the plant, that
there was a work stoppage because of a labor difficulty.
In the meantime, Campbell told the Zollingers what
Barris had told him and suggested to them that they try to
contact someone who might be able to help them. They
left to call the president of the Bricklayers' State
Conference who told them that his only suggestion was to
take the matter to the National Labor Relations Board.
By the time the Zollingers returned to the plant, Cricks
had arrived and he, Campbell and the Zollingers went into
an office to call Mincin. Cricks first talked to Mincin and
told him about the work stoppage and his urgent need to
get the job done. Campbell then took the telephone from
Cricks to speak to Mincin. According to Campbell,
Mincin immediately berated him for bringing Cricks into
the matter at all and repeated his demand of the preceding
night that the two Zollingers be laid off. Campbell told
Mincin that Cricks had control of the project and had to
be told of problems like this. He then handed the
telephone back to Cricks. Mincin now told Cricks that the
Zollingers could go back to work and that the job would
not be shut down. He then said that he wanted to speak to
the job steward, Barris . Barris was called and came to the
office to speak to Mincin. After some conversation with
Mincin, Barris said that he could not hear because of the
noise in the office and asked if he could have a private
telephone. Barris then went to another office to continue
his conversation with Mincin, and the other men prepared
to go to work.
Barris then appeared from the private office where
presumably he had been having a conversation with
Mincin, and announced to Campbell that he was sick and
was going home , and made the same announcement to the
other bricklayers. Campbell and Cricks then conferred
and got all the bricklayers to come into Cricks' office
while they put through another telephone call to Mincin.
A woman who answered the telephone at Mincin's home
said that he was gone and would be away all day. Cricks
then asked Barris if he would feel better if the Zollmgers
were laid off, Barris said he would, and Cricks then
directed Campbell to discharge the two Zollmgers. Later
that day, Campbell made arrangements to hire another
member of Local 2 in order to complete the necessary
crew of eight men.
The version of Mincin and Barris: As related by Mincin
and Barris, there were two telephone conversations that
Sunday morning between Mincin at home and Cricks,
Campbell and Barris at the plant. When Cricks called
Mincin the first time to tell him of the work stoppage
Mincin testified that he told Cricks, Campbell and Barris
separately that the job was to proceed with the Zollmgers
allowed to work. Mincin said he bawled Barris out for
trying to stop the job, but whatever it was that Mincin
was telling him, Barris either could not hear, wanted it
said privately, or wanted to tell Mincin something
privately. It was then that Barris asked to talk to Mincin
over another telephone. Barris went to another office and
Mincin was given the telephone number. Although Barris
waited patiently, and although Mincin called the number
given him, Mincin was unable to contact Barris. Barris
then returned to the office where Campbell and Cricks
were waiting for him. Although Barris does not say so, it
is apparent that he must have told Cricks again that he
would not work, because Cricks then called Mincin back.
Again Mincin, according to himself and Barris, told the
latter to go back to work, but Barris just slammed down
the receiver and refused to work because he was sick. It
was then that Cricks offered to fire the Zollingers if
Barris would recover from his illness, and Barris did so.
The Union's Responsibility for the Discharges
Thus, what emerges from the testimony of Mincin and
Barris is that the latter, contrary to the former s specific
instructions to him, refused to work unless the Zollingers
were laid off. Local 2 admitted in its answer that Barris
was its agent , but it contends nevertheless that Local 2
was not responsible for the work stoppage, or for Barris'
actions, because he acted beyond the scope of his
authority as steward and union agent, and because Barris
never claimed that he was acting on the Union's behalf.
The Union contends that Barris was motivated in his
refusal to work with the Zollingers by personal reasons.
He had never met the Zollingers before April 6, but he
knew that they were not members of his union, Local 2.
He knew Campbell, if not personally then certainly by
reputation. He bore some animosity toward him because
Campbell had never selected him, before this time, for the
desirable Glenshaw jobs with their long hours at premium
pay. Barris was near retirement age, felt indifferent about
working in the future, and therefore freed from the
intimidating fear of crossing his business agent or
Campbell. He resented the fact that Campbell preferred
men from other locals and he expressed this resentment,
on April 7, by refusing to work with the newly hired
Zollingers, who were not members of Local 2, when
fellow members of his Local were unemployed.
Barris may have been influenced by a personal
resentment against Campbell, which was not shared by
other Local 2 members on the Glenshaw job or by
Mmcm. Nevertheless, if Campbell had hired only Local 2
members, Barris' resentment against Campbell for passing
him over on previous jobs would have had no focus of
opposition. It was only because Campbell was hiring men
from other Locals, specifically the Zollingers, that Barris
was given the chance to uphold what he considered to be
the paramount interests of his Local, by refusing to work
if they remained on the job. I have no difficulty in finding
that Barris' insistence that the Zollingers be discharged, as
an exaction for Local 2 men continuing to work, was
because of their nonmembership in Local 2. This
insistence of Barris caused Glenshaw to discriminate
against the Zollingers in violation of Section 8(a)(2), and
therefore constitutes a violation of Section 8(b)(2), if the
Union is responsible for Barris' actions.
I think it is, on two grounds. First, I credit Cricks and
Campbell over Mincin and Barris as to their respective
recollections of the telephone conversation on April 7.
Mincin was telling Cricks that the Zollingers should be
kept on, and at the same time was telling Campbell that
they should be laid off. Mincin was thereby trying to keep
the Union out of trouble while putting pressure on
Campbell, a Bricklayers' member, to accomplish what he
knew Barris was striving for, the termination of the
Zollingers . I do not know precisely what Mincin told
Barris in their conversation or conversations, but it must
have been one of the following: either giving Barris
permission to call a work stoppage in order to get rid of
BRICKLAYERS , MASONS AND PLASTERERS, LOCAL 2
the Zollingers (and this is quite probable in view of what
Mincin had told Campbell the night before); or to caution
him that what action he took must appear to be without
Mincin's approval; or to order him not to leave the job
under any circumstances. Barris never told Mincin in their
conversations that he would allow the Zollingers to work.
So, when Barris slammed down the receiver on Mincin,
Mincin must have known that a work stoppage would
ensue unless the Zollingers were fired, yet he did not call
Barris back, but quickly left his home to be gone all day
Sunday. I find on these facts that Mincin and Local 2
bear the responsibility for Barris' refusal to work with the
Zollingers.
Second, even if Mincin had told Barris not to impede
the Zollingers' working, Local 2 is still responsible for
Barris ' failure to carry out instructions. Barris was the
Union's steward and its authorized representative on the
job. That his specific acts were not actually authorized nor
subsequently ratified is not, under Section 2(13) of the Act
determinative as to whether he was acting as the Union's
agent. I have already found that Barris' actions were not
merely personal, but had as its objective a union aim of
forwarding the interests of its members. Thus, the Union
is responsible for Barris' conduct within the scope of his
general authority, granted him under Article III, Section
1 of the Constitution and Bylaws of Local 2 to "determine
whether or not all bricklayers on the job are members" of
Local 2.'
Mincin ' s Telegram of April 9
On April 8, the two Zollingers filed charges with the
National Labor Relations Board which were served on
Respondent the same day. The following day, Mincin sent
a telegram to Glenshaw with copies to the Zollingers
which read as follows:
You are notified that Bricklayers' Union Local 2 does
not object to your employment of James R. Zollinger
and/or Robert Zollinger, Jr. or to their reinstatement in
employment. This confirms what was stated by me in
our telephone conversation with you of recent date.
A. Mincin, Business
Agent
On receiving the telegram, the elder Zollinger called
Campbell, on his and his son's behalf, to learn if this
meant that they could return to work. Campbell told him
that Cricks was out of town and that he wanted to talk to
him first. The following Friday, Zollinger, Sr. spoke to
Campbell again and Campbell told him that he would not
hire the two Zollingers due to the previous trouble, and
that he had to replace them. Campbell pointed out to him
that Mincin had already okayed their working on Sunday,
but that they had had trouble with Barris despite Mincin's
statements to Cricks over the telephone. Neither of the
Zollingers made any further attempt to return to work at
Glenshaw.
The Union contends that if there was any liability on
the part of the Union for the discharge of the Zollingers
on April 7, it terminated with Mincin' s telegram of April
9 that the Union had no objection to the employment of
the Zollingers. It should be noted that by Tuesday, April
9, Campbell had a full eight-man crew working, of whom
the last two employed were members of Local 2, who had
in effect replaced the Zollingers. To reinstate the
'United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Local
Union 2067, AFL-CIO, 166 NLRB No 78 (TXD).
437
Zollingers and still maintain the normal complement of
eight would mean that Glenshaw would have to lay off
Ferris and Presley, the Local 2 members who had been
hired on Sunday. The telegram did not say that the Union
would guarantee that Barris was withdrawing his objection
to the employment of the Zollingers. The telegram rather
merely reiterated what Mincin had told Cricks on Sunday,
that he, Mincin, had no objection to the Zollingers
working. But Cricks and Campbell knew that Barris had
already effectively overruled Mincin's permission to
Glenshaw to retain the Zollingers.
I consider that Cricks was justified in believing that no
essential change in the situation as of Sunday, April 7,
had been accomplished by the telegram of April 9.
Assuming that Barris was disobeying Mincin's instructions
with respect to the retention of the Zollingers on April 7,
it is obvious that the telegram did nothing to allay Cricks'
reasonable fear that Barris would again refuse to work so
long as the Zollmgers were holding jobs which would
otherwise be filled by Local 2 members. I therefore find
that Mincm's telegram of April 9 did not effectively
repudiate the illegal action which Barris had taken on
April 7, and which there was every reason to believe he
would continue, if the Zollingers were reinstated.
W. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Employer's
activities described in section I, above, 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.
V. THE REMEDY
As I have found that the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1) (A) and (2) of the Act, I will recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The record shows that the Zollingers were discharged at
the Union's behest on April 7, 1968, and that the
Glenshaw job was not completed until April 19, 1968. As
a result, the Zollingers were deprived of employment
which they would otherwise have had between those dates.
I shall therefore recommend that the Respondent make
them whole for any loss of pay each may have
individually suffered by 'reason of its discriminatory
conduct. Loss of pay shall be determined in accordance
with the formula prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, including interest thereon at 6
percent per annum in accordance with Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. I shall also recommend that
the Respondent notify Glenshaw Glass in writing, with
copies to the two Zollingers, that it will not object to their
employment in the future because of their nonmembership
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following.
Conclusions of Law
1. Glenshaw Glass Company, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Bricklayers , Masons and Plasterers ' International
Union of America , Bricklayers Local No. 2, AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By causing Glenshaw Glass Company, Inc., to
terminate the employment of James R. Zollinger and
Robert Zollinger , Jr., because of their nonmembership in
Bricklayers Local 2, Respondent has engaged in, and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b)(2) and 8 (b)(1)(A) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , I recommend that Bricklayers , Masons and
Plasterers ' International Union of America, Bricklayers
Local No. 2, AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and
representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Glenshaw Glass
Company, Inc., to lay off, or otherwise discriminate
against employees in any way because of their
nonmembership in Bricklayers Local No. 2.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify Glenshaw Glass Company, Inc., in writing,
with a copy to James R. Zollinger and to Robert
Zollinger , Jr., that it has no objection to their
employment by the Company in the future.
(b) Make James R. Zollinger and Robert Zollinger, Jr.,
whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them , in the manner
set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post in conspicuous places in all its business offices,
meeting halls, and places where notices to its members are
customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 6, shall , after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of Bricklayers
Local No. 2, shall be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Local No. 2
to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced or
covered by any other material.
(d) Furnish to the Regional Director signed copies of
the notice marked Appendix for posting by Glenshaw
Glass Company, Inc., in places where notices to
employees are customarily posted . Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director, shall, after
being duly signed by an authorized representative of Local
No. 2, be returned forthwith to the Regional Director for
disposition by him.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in
writing , within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision , what steps Local No . 2 has taken to comply
herewith.'
APPENDIX
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Glenshaw
Glass Company, Inc. to lay off, or discriminate against,
employees in any way because of their nonmembership
in Bricklayers Local No. 2.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of their rights which are
guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL notify Glenshaw Glass Company, Inc., in
writing, with copies to James R. Zollinger and Robert
Zollinger, Jr., that we have no objection to their
employment by the Company in the future.
WE WILL make James R. Zollinger and Robert
Zollinger, Jr. whole for any loss of pay they have
suffered because of the discrimination which we caused
them.
Dated By
BRICKLAYERS , MASONS
AND PLASTERERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF AMERICA,
BRICKLAYERS LOCAL No.
2, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
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.
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office, 1536 Federal
Building , 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
15222, Telephone 644-2969.
n e event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice. In the further
event that the Board ' s Order be enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decision of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
'In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."