Burgreen Contracting Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 1067 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

BURGREEN CONTRACTING CO. 1067
Burgreen Contracting Company, Inc. and Southern
Labor I.)nion , Local 101 and United Mine Workers
of America, District 20, Party to the Contract
findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recom-
mended Order except as modified herein.'
ORDER
Marcoal, Inc . and Southern Labor Union , Local 292
an'd United Mine Workers of America, District 20,
Party to the Contract
!Jnited Mine Workers of America District 20 and
Southern Labor Union , Local 101
United Mine Workers of America, District 20 and
Southern Labor Union , Local 333
United Mine Workers of America , District 20 and
Southern Labor Union , Local 274
United Mine Workers of America , District 20 and
Southern Labor Union , Local 292
United Mine Workers of America , District 20 and
Southern Labor Union , Local 174
United Mine Workers of America , District 20 and
Southern Labor Union , Local 333
United Mine Workers of America, District.20 and
Southern Labor Union , Local 274
Burgreen Contracting Company, Inc., Petitioner and
United Mine Workers of America and Southern La-
bor Union , Local 101.Cases 10-CA-9009, 10-CA-
9049, 10-CB-2020, 10-CB-2021, 10-CB-2022, 10-
CB-2019, 10-CP-113, 10-CP-114, 10-CP-115,
10-CP-116, and 10-RM-562
March 29, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND KENNEDY
On December 7, 1971, Trial Examiner Milton Janus
issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. There-
after, Respondent United Mine Workers of America,
District 20, filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings,
195 NLRB No. 191
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby or-
ders that the Respondents Burgreen Contracting Com-
pany, Inc., Athens; Alabama Marcoal, Inc., Marion
County, Alabama, their officers, agents , successors,
and assigns , and United Mine Workers of America,
District 20, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
recommended Order as so modified:
1. Substitute the attached Appendix C for the Trial
Examiner's Appendix C.
2. Add the attached Appendix D to be posted by
Respondent United Mine Workers of America, District
20, in Case 10-CB-2020.
APPENDIX C
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-bargaining
agreement which we entered into on or about June 8,
1971, with Marcoal, Inc.
WE WILL NOT act as the bargaining representative of
any employees of Marcoal, for the purpose of dealing
with that Employer unless and until we have been cer-
tified by the National Labor Relations Board as the
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce the employees of
Marcoal, Inc., Huguley & Son Coal.Company, Inc., or
M & M Coal Co., Inc., by mass picketing which is
conducted in such manner as to cause employees to fear
physical harm or to fear for their safety in entering,
leaving, or remaining at work.
WE WILL NOT picket or threaten to picket Marcoal,
Coalite, Huguley, or M & M with an object of forcing
or requiring those employers to bargain with us as the
collective-bargaining representative of their employees,
or forcing or requiring their employees to select or
accept us as their representative during any period
when the employers have recognized another union as
the bargaining representative of their employees, and a
question concerning representation may not be raised.
' The General Counsel's motion to sever Cases 10-CA-9009 and 10-
CB-2020 from the other cases herein for compliance handling is hereby
granted.
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or co-
erce the employees of Marcoal, Coalite, Huguley, or M
& M in the right guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act to join or not to join any
labor organization.
WE WILL reimburse all dues and initiation fees, with
interest at 6 percent, to all past or present employees
of Marcoal who applied for membership in our organi-
zation on or after June 8, 1971.
UNITED MINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA,
DISTRICT 20
(Labor Organization)
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 compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, Peachtree Building, Room 701, 730 Peachtree
Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone 404-
526-5760.
APPENDIX D
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-bar-
gaining agreements which we entered into on or
about May 18, 1971, with Athens Coal Co., as the
successor to Burgreen Contracting Company, Inc.
WE WILL NOT act as the bargaining representa-
tive of any employees of Burgreen or its successor,
Athens Coal Co., for the purpose of dealing with
that Employer unless and until we have been cer-
tified by the National Labor Relations Board as
the exclusive representative of its employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or
coerce the employees of Burgreen or its successor,
Athens Coal Co., in the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act to
join or not to join any labor organization.
WE WILL reimburse all dues and initiation fees,
with interest at 6 percent, to all past or present
employees of Burgreen who applied for member-
ship in our organization on or after May 18, 1971.
UNITED MINE
WORKERS OF
AMERICA,
DISTRICT 20
(Labor Organizati(^n)
Dated By
(Representative) (Titl )
This is an official notice and must not be defaced b,Y
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 compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, Peachtree Building , Room 701, 730 Peachtree
Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone 404-
526-5760.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE'
MILTON JANUS, Trial Examiner: The charges and com-
plaints in this consolidated proceeding were filed or issued on
the following dates:
1. 10-CP-113: charges filed May 27 and June 4.
10-CB-2019: charge filed June 21. A complaint and order
consolidating these two cases was issued July 20. The charg-
ing party in each case is SLU Local 292, the employer in-
volved is Marcoal, and the Respondent is UMW.
10-CA-9049 charge filed June 21, and the complaint is-
sued on July 21. The charging party is SLU Local 292, the
Respondent is Marcoal, and UMW is named as party to the
contract.
2. 10-CP-114: charge was filed June 10, and the complaint
issued July 20. The charging party is SLU Local 174, the
employer involved is Coalite, and the Respondent is UMW.
3. 10-CP-115: charge filed June 22 and complaint issued
July 20. The charging party is SLU Local 333, the employer
involved is Huguley, and the Respondent is UMW.
10-CB-2021: charge filed June 21 and complaint issued
July 21. The charging party is SLU Local 333, the employer
involved is Huguley, and the Respondent is UMW.
4. 10-CP-116: charge filed June 22 and complaint issued
July 20. The charging party is SLU Local 274, the employer
involved is M & M, and the Respondent is UMW.
10-CB-2022: charge filed June 22 and complaint issued
July 21. The charging party is SLU Local 274, the employer
involved is M & M, and the Respondent is UMW.
5. 10-CA-9009: charges filed May 24 and June 22, and the
complaint issued July 21. The charging party is SLU Local
101, the Respondent is Burgreen, and UMW is named as
party to the contract.
I The parties to this proceeding will be referred to as follows: United
Mine Workers of America, District 20, as UMW or District 20; Southern
Labor Union as SLU; Burgreen Contracting Company, Inc., and its succes-
sor Athens Coal Co. as Burgreen and Athens; Marcoal, Inc ., as Marcoal;
Coalite Inc., as Coalite; Huguley & Son Coal Company, Inc., as Huguley;
and M & M Coal Co. Inc., as M & M.
Unless otherwise noted, all actions described herein took place in 1971.
BURGREEN CONTRACTING CO. 1069
10-CB-2020 : charges were filed June 22 and July 15, and
complaint was issued July 21 . The charging party is SLU
Local 101, the employer involved is Burgreen , and the Re-
spondent is UMW.
10-RM-562 : a petition was filed by Burgreen on May 3,
and an agreement for consent election , signed by Burgreen,
UMW, and SLU Local 101 (the Unions claiming to represent
Burgreen employees) was approved on May 11 . An election
was conducted on May 20 for the agreed appropriate unit. Of
approximately nine eligible voters, none cast ballots. On May
24, SLU filed timely objections to the election , and on July
27, the Regional Director for Region 10, after investigation,
issued a report in which he found that one of the objections
alleged conduct which was coextensive with that alleged in
Cases 10-CA-9009 and 10-CB-2020 . He therefore directed
that a hearing be held on that objection , and consolidated it
with the hearings to be held in the unfair labor practice
matters. He also directed that the matter be retransferred to
him after the issuance of this Decision.
On August 11, the Regional Director issued an order con-
solidating the complaints -in all the above cases . Answers to
the various complaints were duly filed.
I conducted a hearing on these matters on August 24 and
25, 1971, at Birmingham, Alabama . After the hearing I re-
ceived briefs from the General Counsel , the Employers, SLU,
and UMW , all of which I have considered . Upon the entire
record, including my observation of the witnesses and their
demeanor , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
1. Marcoal is an Alabama corporation which is engaged in
the mining and sale of coal at a location in Marion County,
Alabama . In a recent representative period it sold and
shipped coal valued in excess of $50,000 to customers within
Alabama who in turn sold and shipped coal valued in excess
of $50 ,000 to customers located outside Alabama.
2. Coalite is an Alabama corporation with a place of busi-
ness at Glen Allen , Alabama , where it is engaged in the
mining and sale of coal . In a recent representative period it
mined and shipped coal valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly
to customers located outside of Alabama.
3. Huguley is an Alabama corporation which is engaged in
the mining and sale of coal at a location in Marion County,
Alabama . In a recent representative period it mined and
shipped coal valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers
located outside of Alabama.
4. M & M is an Alabama corporation which is engaged in
the mining and sale of coal at a location in Marion County,
Alabama . In a recent representative period it mined and
shipped coal valued in excess of $ 50,000 directly to customers
located outside of Alabama.
5. Burgreen is a Alabama corporation with a place of busi-
ness at Athens , Alabama, where it is engaged in the construc-
tion of roads and interstate highways . At all times material
here , it also operated a strip mine in Winston County, Ala-
bama . In a recent representative period it purchased and
received materials valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly from
suppliers located outside of Alabama.
I find that each of the above-named employers is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Mine Workers of America, District 20, and South-
ern Labor Union Locals 101, 174 , 292, 274 , and 333, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The tie that binds these cases is the efforts by persons
sympathetic to UMW to obtain immediate recognition for
UMW from five coal mine operators in northern Alabama in
May and June 1971. During those months , work stoppages
began at the mine properties of all five employers , in which
both their employees and nonemployees participated. The
stoppages continued , in the case of two of the employers,
Burgreen and Marcoal , until each signed a collective -bargain-
ing agreement with UMW . In the case of -the others it con-
tinued until a Federal district court injunction against further
picketing was issued on July 28.1
At the time , Burgreen had a RM petition pending to deter-
mine by Board election whether its employees wanted UMW
or SLU to represent them . The other four , Marcoal, Coalite,
Huguley , and M & M, were already under contract with
various Locals of SLU.
The Work Stoppages
Burgreen: Burgreen first began strip mining operations in
November 1970, and started at its present location in Win-
ston County early in 1971 . It employed about seven em-
ployees, three at the pit and four at its tipple , about 18 miles
away . After operations at its present site began, Lester Bur-
green , its mine superintendent , was asked to sign a bargaining
contract , once by Davis, a representative of SLU , and on two
or three occasions by Fuller, a district representative of Dis-
trict 20 . The Company refused to sign a contract with any
labor organization because it was just getting started.
On Monday, May 3 , Fuller came to the tipple and told
Lester Burgreen that he had a majority of his men signed up
and wanted him to sign a contract , that he could not hold the
men off much longer . Burgreen said that he had no authority
to do so and that his lawyer would have to handle the prob-
lem. Fuller suggested that they have a meeting the next day
or so with Mr. Beane , acting president of District 20.
Burgreen then called his lawyer to tell him of Fuller's
request that he sign a UMW contract immediately , and of a
similar request by SLU previously . That same day, the Com-
pany filed a petition for a Board election to resolve the claims
for representation . That evening, Lester Burgreen called
Fuller and told him that there was no reason to meet with
Beane in view of the petition.
On Wednesday morning , May 5 , when Lester Burgreen
went to the mine he found 25 to 30 strangers congregating on
the road to the mine . One of them introduced himself as
McDaniel and asked him to sign a UMW contract .' Burgreen
refused and McDaniel said he would get in touch with Fuller.
Both left the mine and when Burgreen returned less than an
hour later , the number of men at the mine entrance had
increased to 40 or 45. McDaniel again approached Burgreen
and gave him a telephone number to call if he wanted a
meeting with the District 20 officials. Burgreen asked
McDaniel if he was shutting them down or if they could go
back to work , and McDaniel gave him his answer, in effect,
by asking him if his men were working then . No men worked
thereafter at the pit , and there was no further congregating
' One of these employers, however, did not then resume mining opera-
tions because of the theft of its equipment during the stoppage.
' McDaniel is a retired miner who is president of a UMW Local in the
area.
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the road entrance. The men at the tipple continued to work
on cleanup and mechanical jobs, but two of them left after a
few days because there was no coal handling going on.
On May 11, Burgreen, SLU Local 101 and District 20
executed a consent election agreement for a Board election to
be held on May 20. However, on May 16, Lester Burgreen
called Fuller and asked to meet with him to discuss a UMW
contract. Lester and Billy Burgreen, another Company offi-
cial, met the next day with Fuller to go over the standard
UMW contract. One of the Burgreens asked Fuller if work
could start once the contract was signed and Fuller replied
affirmatively. On May 18, the contract was executed.' Lester
Burgreen and Fuller went to the pit, where the employees
were waiting, although no company official had informed
them to be ready to go to work. Fuller told Burgreen that his
employees would be put in the Nauvoo Local, and McDaniel,
its president, told Burgreen that he would be happy to help
him in any way, and to contact him if he had any trouble.
Fuller then executed dues checkoff cards for the men and they
returned to work.
In Case 10-CA-9009 Burgreen is alleged to have violated
Section 8(a)(2) by according recognition to UMW shortly
before the scheduled election was held, pursuant to the agree-
ment for consent election entered into by Burgreen, UMW,
and SLU. In l0-CB-2020, UMW is alleged to have violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) by executing the same agreement. The
objections in 10-RM-562, filed by SLU, allege the same con-
duct as constituting grounds for setting aside the election
which was held after the execution of the agreement. It
should be noted that although the election was held, no one
came to vote.
Marcoal. Marcoal had operated a strip mine near Brilliant,
Alabama, since about midyear 1969, and on July 14 of that
year had entered into a 3-year collective-bargaining agree-
ment with SLU Local 292. About 10 men were employed at
the mine in May 1971. According to Roger West, vice presi-
dent of Marcoal, whose testimony is the basis for the recital
of events set out below, he had been asked on a number of
occasions by Vernon Bankston, a UMW district representa-
tive, in the early part of 1971 to sign a UMW contract, but
had declined on the ground that he was already under con-
tract with SLU.
On the morning of May 24, West received a telephone call
from his shift leader at the mine that there were 30 to 50 men
blocking the entrance to the mine. When West arrived at the
mine about 9 a.m., the number had dwindled to 6 or 8, of
whom about half were his employees and the others were
retired miners. West told them he would go to Brilliant where
he hoped to find Bankston. He found him at a local cafe and
asked him who had pushed the panic button. Bankston ex-
pressed surprise at what had happened, disclaimed knowl-
edge of what was going on, but eventually told West that the
whole matter could be straightened out if he signed a UMW
contract. West again explained that he already had an SLU
contract in effect. It was agreed between them that West
would call Beane, the acting president of District 20. West did
call Beane that evening and Beane told him he was not famil-
iar with the situation but that he would talk to Bankston to
see what could be worked out. In the following week, West
called Bankston two or three times without any positive re-
sults. During this week, none of the employees worked, and
there were usually a few men standing around near the pit
entrance.
' A day or two earlier , Burgreen had formed Athens Coal Company as
its subsidiary . The contract with UMW was in fact executed by Athens Coal
Company.
On June 1, West went to the pit and one of those standing
around came up to him, introduced himself as Billy McDan-
iel, spoke to him about the advantages of UMW membership
for his employees, and asked him sign a UMW contract. West
repeated that he was under contract with the SLU. McDaniel
then suggested that West call the UMW district office because
something could be worked out. That afternoon, West called
Beane in Birmingham , told him he had nothing against
UMW, and asked if he could continue to operate under his
SLU contract until it expired in July 1972, when he would be
glad to. sign a UMW contract if that was what his men
wanted. Beane said he could not go along with that, that he
knew nothing about the matter and would not get involved.
During this period, West apparently had called Davis, the
SLU representative, to see what could be done about resum-
ing work. Davis spoke to the Marcoal employees, but they
refused to return. West admitted that a majority of his men
had told him they wanted to join UMW.
Beginning June 3, a few stickers appeared on car bumpers,
on a tree, and an ice-chest near the mine entrance, reading
"Join and Support UMW." On June 7, West and his father
met with Fuller, the District 20 representative, by arrange-
ment, to discuss their executing a UMW contract, and the
next day they did so. Fuller agreed, since West was in the
hospital that day, to go to the mine and advise the men to
return to work. The following day, June 9, work resumed at
the mine.
In 10-CA-9049 Marcoal is alleged to have violated Section
8(a)(2) by according recognition to UMW while it had a valid
existing collective -bargaining agreement with SLU. UMW is
said to have violated Section 8(b)(1)(A), in 10-CB-2019, by
mass picketing blocking ingress and egress to the Marcoal
mine, and by entering into a bargaining agreement with Mar-
coal despite Marcoal's preexisting agreement with SLU. In
10-CP-113 it is alleged that UMW violated Section
8(b)(7)(A) by demanding recognition and picketing for it, to
compel Marcoal to recognize it as the representative of its
employees, and in order to compel the employees to accept
or select it as their representative, even though Marcoal had
lawfully recognized and had negotiated a contract with SLU,
and a question concerning representation could not be raised
under Section 9(c) of the Act.
Coalite: Coalite operates a pit and tipple in Marion County
about 11 miles apart. The tipple handles coal for other mining
operators as well as Coalite. During the events before the
stoppage, the pit employed about 18 miners and the tipple
about 9. Coalite has had a bargaining relationship with SLU
for many years, the latest of their contracts running from
May 1970 to May 1973.
Joseph Markham, Coalite's pit superintendent, arrived at
the pit shortly after 6 a.m. on Wednesday morning, June 9.
There were 130 to 150 men gathered at the entrance. There
were also on the road leading to the mine entrance 30 or 40
cars with bumper stickers reading, "Join and Support
UMW." No picket signs were being used. When Markham
approached the crowd he asked who was their spokesman,
and a man who introduced himself as McDaniel spoke up.
Markham asked what he wanted and McDaniel said he
wanted a UMW contract signed. Markham said that he
would get in touch with David Roberts, president of Coalite,
that he himself had nothing to do with the contracts. Mark-
ham then left the mine area and returned later that morning
to tell McDaniel that he had been unable to get in touch with
Roberts.
No mining was done at the pit between June 9 and July 29,
until after the Federal district court injunction was granted.
Coalite had given orders to its superintendent to have a crew
pit go to work on July 16, but the crew refused to work that
BURGREEN CONTRACTING CO.
day. Roberts testified that dynamite had ,been thrown in the
yards of three of his men the night before.
Apparently no attempt was made by Roberts to contact
either McDaniel or officials of UMW District 20 after June
9. However , on July 8, Roberts and Markham met Vernon
Bankston -'of District 20 and two retired UMW miners by
chance at a nearby mine. Roberts knew the two retired UMW
miners , who introduced him to Bankston . Roberts asked
Bankston what he was doing there and Bankston said he was
trying to organize the mine for UMW. Roberts then asked
Bankston why he was giving them so much trouble at Coalite
and' Bankston said he was not familiar with their situation.
B̂-tnkston did say that he had possibly talked to several of the
fc oalite men about joining up with UMW , and Roberts re-
plied that he could not sign a contract with UMW because
he'was already under contract with SLU . Roberts said that
when that contract expired and -an election was held he would
be happy to meet with the duly elected representatives and
sign a contract . Bankston then replied that the Coalite con-
tract with SLU should not make much difference because
with most of his men already in UMW he could sign with it
and SLU would not fight him in court.
The complaint in 10-CP-1 14 alleges that UMW violated
Section 8(b)(7)(A) by picketing for recognition despite Coali-
te's existing valid agreement with SLU Local 174.
Huguley: Huguley operates an underground mine near
Rock City, Alabama, employing 5 or 6 miners, who were
represented by SLU under a 3-year contract due to expire in
March 1974.
On June 16, about 8:30 a.m., while the miners were below
ground working, power for the mine was shut off by unknown
parties at the generator house near the mine entrance. It was
shut off. and turned on three separate times within a short
period . John Huguley, an official of the Company who was
working in the mine that day, came out to investigate, and
saw ' 14 ' men standing near the generator house . Just then,
Billy West, a private mine inspector (authorized by the Fed-
eral Bureau of Mines to inspect underground mines) arrived
to make his daily inspection . Huguley told him the power had
just been shut off. West approached the men , none of whom
were Huguley employees , and ordered them not to interfere
with the generator which supplies power for the lights, mo-
tors , and ventilation system below ground.
West testified that he recognized MacDaniel (previously
identified as president of a UMW Local), and Jack Cotton,
a Coalite employee , among the 14 men standing around. The
only man whom Huguley could positively identify among the
14 was Jack Cotton . One of the men whom Huguley did not
know identified himself as a UMW representative.' The man,
who may or may not have been Oscar Andrews, asked Hugu-
ley to get his men out of the mine so that they might sign
checkoff cards for the UMW . He also asked Huguley to sign
a UMW contract but Huguley declined , telling him that he
was already under contract with SLU . According to Billy
West's testimony, however , it was MacDaniel who told
Huguley that he could not mine any more coal until he signed
a UMW contract.
Huguley ordered his men out of the mine and sent them
home . He has made no further attempt to mine coal since,
There has been no further congregating of nonemployees at
Huguley's operations since June 16 . Huguley did not open his
mine after the district court injunction was issued because his
equipment had been stolen during the mine's shutdown.
' Huguley testified that he later took down the license number of the
pickup truck in which the man drove off and learned from offical motor
vehicle records that it belonged to an Oscar Andrews , not otherwise iden-
tified.
1071
Case 10-CB-2021 alleges violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
by UMW in mass picketing and blocking ingress and egress,
and other acts of intimidation at the Huguley mine, and Case
10-CP-115 alleges that UMW violated Section 8(b)(7)(A) by
picketing for recognition by Huguley despite its valid existing
agreement with SLU Local 333.
M & M.• The Company operats a strip mine and tipple
about 8 miles apart, employing about 19 men. It has a current
agreement with SLU which ran from October 1968 to Octo-
ber 1971. Lee West, who testified for the General Counsel, is
the foreman for the tipple.6
About 9:30 a.m. June 16, West testified , 60 to 100 men
began gathering on the road leading to the tipple. Two of
them emerged from the crowd and began talking to the em-
ployees at the tipple trying to get them to sign UMW°cards.
West testified that he was then in his office near the tipple and
that one of his employees , Hubbard, came and told him that
the men had said to go ahead and work that day, but not to
work after that. A few minutes later men in the crowd were
observed to be ordering trucks which were delivering coal to
the tipple to return to the pit . The men who were assembled
there, none of whom were M & M employees , then came into
the tipple and ordered the five employees to shut it down or
somebody would get hurt. West, who was still in his office,
learned this from Walter Sexton , an independent hauler, who
came into the office to report the information to him. West
then went to the tipple and ordered the employees to shut it
down . He introduced himself to the spokesman for the group,
and the man identified himself as Billy MacDaniel . West and
MacDaniel then engaged in some conversation but nothing
was said about the UMW. However , West testified that he
heard someone in the crowd saying they could not run it
without a UMW contract . He identified some of the men in
the crowd as retired miners who were UMW members.
Case 10-CB-2022 alleges violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
by UMW in mass picketing blocking ingress and egress at the
tipple, and in threatening employees with physical harm if
they continued to operate the tipple . Case 10-CP-116 alleges
that UMW violated Section 8(b)(7)(A) by picketing for
recognition by M & M despite its valid existing agreement
with SLU Local 274.
The Issues and Contentions of the Parties
The principal issue here is the responsibility of UMW for
the stoppages which occurred at the mines of the five employ-
ers and for their aftermath . The General Counsel, the em-
ployers and SLU all contend that UMW was responsible for
the stoppages , for blocking ingress and egress at the mine
properties, for threats and intimidation of mine employees,
and for picketing with an object of obtaining recognition and
bargaining from the five employers. The General Counsel
also contends that Burgreen violated Section 8 (a)(2) by enter-
ing into a bargaining agreement with UMW while a Board-
directed election was pending, and that Marcoal violated
Section 8(a)(2) by recognizing UMW when no question con-
cerning representation could be raised because Marcoal then
had a valid existing agreement with SLU. Burgreen and Mar-
coal admit violating Section 8(a)(2) but excuse their illegal
action by the economic pressure they were subjeted to
through the shutdown of their mines by UMW.
6 Lee West is a brother of Billy West, who testified about the events at
the Huguley mine , but is not related to Roger West, who testified as to the
events at Marcoai.
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Facts and Conclusions as to UMW Responsibility
Background to UMW organizing activities in May-June
1971: At the request of the employers' counsel, and over the
objection of UMW, I received in evidence as Coalite Exhibit
2 a copy of the UMW Journal dated June 1968.' I did so
because it served to illustrate that UMW had a continuing
interest in organizing Alabama coal miners. A large part of
the Journal is devoted to reports of speeches made by the
president and other officers of the International UMW to a
large assemblage of its members in Alabama, on their duty
to organize nonunion coal mines in Alabama (including so-
called company dominated unions in the area) in preparation
for impending contract negotiations with unionized mine op-
erators. The theme of the speeches was that it was up to the
rank-and-file union members to do the organizing, or, as
President Boyle is quoted in the article as having said:
I have every confidence in the officers of District 20
but they can't do the job alone. So I'm asking you fellows
to pledge to me and yourselves that you will get out and
get these nonunion members off to one side and tell him
the facts of life.
You'll have to get these people organized if you want
District 20 to live and prosper. I don't like to see that
scab coal being mixed with union coal. I don't like the
odor of it. And I'm not' going to let up until I see Ala-
bama organized 100 percent.
Not all the coal mines in Alabama had been organized by
UMW by 1971, when a new nationwide contract was to be
negotiated. So far as the record shows, International UMW
officers did not come to Alabama in 1971, as they had in 1968,
to exhort their members to organize non-UMW mines for
their own good and for that of their union. However, in
January or February 1971, District 20 held a mass meeting
at Carbon Hill, Alabama, attended by 300 to 400 members,
to consider its past organizing progress and its program for
the coming year. The presiding officer was C. E. Beane, acting
president of District 20, and other District 20 representatives
and officials were also present. The testimony as to specific
discussions and proposals made at the meeting is exceedingly
vague , but Bankston testified that he supposed one of the
matters brought up then was running SLU out of Alabama
before UMW's contract with mine operators expired in Octo-
ber 1971. Another item that Bankston imagined was brought
up at this meeting was a relief fund, organized by the presi-
dents of UMW locals in the area, to pay striking UMW
adherents a weekly stipend while they were out on strike.
Both he and Beane disclaimed knowledge of the impetus for
the organization of the fund or how it was administered,
except that it had been financed by locals within District 20's
jurisdiction.
UMW and the events of May-June 1971: UMW argues in
its brief that the moving cause of the disputes or stoppages
was employee dissatisfaction with SLU representation,' and
that, in any event, there is no proof of participation in or
authorization of the stoppages by UMW agents.
There is some evidence of employee dissatisfaction with
SLU representation at some of the employers involved here,
just as there is evidence that some of the corporate officers
and some of the mine supervisors may have been SLU mem-
bers. However, Coalite, Marcoal, Huguley, and M & M were
all under contract with SLU, and these contracts were valid
on their face. No charges were ever filed by UMW alleging
that these companies had assisted SLU or were dominating
its affairs. Even assuming that there was employee dissatisfac-
tion with SLU and that this was the sole cause of the stop-
pages, I would still find that any violation of the Act arising
from the stoppages was not excused thereby.' Other methods
for remedying this unsatisfactory situation were available
without engaging in illegal self-help.
The basic issue to be resolved, however, is whether UMW
was responsible for the stoppages and their consequences.
UMW correctly points out that Beane, Bankston , and Fuller,
official representatives of District 20, were never identified as
being at the sites of the stoppages, and argues from that fait
that it bears no responsibility for anything that may have'
taken place there, or for the aftereffects of the stoppages.
UMW is unwilling to assume responsibility for the acts of its
members, unless they were authorized to act on its behalf by
its admitted agents.
The other parties argue that the undisputed facts establish
authorization or ratification by UMW agents , and that the
absence of Beane, Fuller, and Bankston from the site of the
actual stoppages is immaterial.
On May 5, 25 to 30 men congregated at the Burgreen mine;
on May 24, 30 to 50 at Marcoal; on June 9, 130 to 150 at
Coalite; on June 16, about 14 at Huguley; and on the same
date, 60 to 100 men at M & M. These were not the random
meetings of strangers, but of men determined to shut down
the mines and tipples of the operators until they would agree
to sign a contract with UMW. Their presence at a specific
place and time can only be accounted for by planning and
coordination, and since the aim of all these groups of pickets10
was to obtain immediate UMW contracts with the operators,
I draw the conclusion that they were there because UMW
wanted them to be there and had arranged for them to be
there. The presence of McDaniel, president of an area UMW
Local, at each of the five mine sites, his role as spokesman at
each place, and his request that the operators sign UMW
contracts, is sufficient proof for me that he was acting as agent
for UMW.
There is also substantial evidence that other UMW agents
were intimately involved in the orchestrated arrivals and de-
partures of the pickets at each of the five mine properties.
Two days before picketing began at Burgreen, Fuller, a Dis-
trict 20 representative, told Lester Burgreen that he wanted
him to sign a contract, and that he could not hold his men
off much longer . Bankston , another District 20 representa-
tive, had asked Marcoal to sign a contract before picketing
began, so that on May 24, West knew whom to seek out to
learn what it would take for picketing to cease. Although
Bankston disclaimed any knowledge of why the men were
picketing, he was still able to assure West that the whole
matter could be straightened out if he signed a UMW con-
tract . Beane, too, although claiming ignorance and surprise
at the events at Marcoal, refused to involve himself so long
as Marcoal insisted on living up to its contract with SLU. It
was only when Marcoal disowned its contract with SLU by
signing a UMW contract on June 8 that picketing ceased. It
was Bankston again who told a Coalite official to disregard
his contract with SLU and sign up with UMW as the price
for getting his men back to work.
° International Hod Carriers' Building & Common Laborers' Union of
America (Roman Stone Construction Company), 153 NLRB 659, fn. 3.
' International Union, United Mine Workers, 83 NLRB 916, 918, fn. 8. 10 The men were picketing even though they carried no placards and were
' This could not, of course, explain the stoppage at Burgreen whose massed around the mine property entrances instead of patrolling or walking
employees were not represented by SLU, and where an employer petition back and forth. District 30, United Mine Workers of America, 163 NLRB
to resolve the conflicting UMW and SLU claims for representation was then 562, 569-570; United Mine Workers ofAmerica, District 12, 177 NLRB No.
pending. 27.
BURGREEN CONTRACTING CO.
I them fore find, based on the foregoing, that McDaniel,
Beane, Bankston, and Fuller, agents of UMW District 20,
plannvcd and supervised the activities of the pickets at the
mine properties involved here, and are responsible for their
actions."
Concluding Findings
The Section 8(a)(2) allegations: By executing a bargaining
agreement with UMW when a Board directed election was
pending, Athens Coal Company (the successor to Burgreen
in the operation of its mine) improperly assumed for itself the
resolution of a question concerning representation then
before the Board, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(2).12
Marcoal's recognition of UMW, when no question con-
cerning representation could be raised because of its valid
existing bargaining agreement with SLU, also constitutes un-
lawful assistance in violation of Section 8(a)(2), as well as
unlawful interference in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
The Section 8(b)(1)(A) allegations: By its knowing accept-
ance of recognition and the execution of agreements with
Athens and Marcoal, UMW utilized the unlawful assistance
of the employer involved, in restraint of the self-organiza-
tional rights of their employees, and thereby violated Section
8(b)(1)(A)."
The complaints in Cases 10-CB-2019 (Marcoal), 10-CB-
2021, (Huguley), and 10-CB-2022 (M & M) allege violations
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) on the part of UMW by mass picketing
which blocked ingress and egress of employees of these em-
ployers to their place of work, and by threats of violence and
other intimidation. The undisputed facts show that mass
blocking of the access roads and entrances to the various
mines properties did occur, and that, as a result, the em-
ployees were hindered from working. In addition, at Huguley
the intermittent power shutdowns, which I find perpetrated
by pickets, made further work impossible and constituted a
threat to the miners' safety. At M & M, members of the mob
congregated at the tipple, entered it, and ordered the workers
to shut it down or somebody would get hurt. I find that the
mass picketing and other acts of intimidation constituted
coercive conduct which tended to and was designed to inter-
fere with the employees' exercise of their Section 7 right not
to join UMW. '°
The Section 8(b)(7)(A) allegations: It is evident from the
demands made at each of the sites that the picketing at Mar-
coal, M & M, Coalite, and Huguley had an object of forcing
or requiring recognition of UMW from the named employers,
and of forcing or requiring their employees to accept UMW
as their collective-bargaining representative. The picketing
took place at a time when each of these employers had a valid
existing bargaining agreement in effect with a Local of SLU,
and no question concerning representation could appropri-
ately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act. I find therefore
that the allegations of the combined complaints concerning
violations of Section 8(b)(7)(A) by UMW have been proved.
" United Mine Workers of America. 173 NLRB 665, 669; District 30,
United Mine Workers ofAmerica, 163 NLRB 562; United Mine Workers of
America, Local No. 7083, 146 NLRB 176, 181, etseq.; United Mine Workers
ofAmerica, Local 7244, 146 NLRB 244, 250 and United States v. Interna-
tional Union, United Mine Workers of America, 77 F.Supp. 563, 566, "as
long as a union is functioning as a union it must be held responsible for the
mass action of its members."
" Raymond Buick, Inc., 173 NLRB 1292, 1308.
" Andersen Pharmacy, et al., 187 NLRB No. 23.
" United Mine Workers of America (Weirton Construction Company),
174 NLRB No. 52.
IV. OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION
1073
SLU Local 101 filed timely objections to the election con-
ducted on May 20 in Case 10-RM-562 (Burgreen ), and after
investigation , the Regional Director for Region 10 concluded
that Objection 1 covered the same ground as the allegations
in the complaints issued in Cases 10-CA-9009 and 10-CB-
2020. He therefore consolidated these matters and directed
that after hearing and decision , the objections matter be sev-
ered and returned to him for further processing . I hereby find
merit in Objection 1, that the Employer and UMW entered
into a contract while a valid question concerning representa-
tion was pending , and that this is good reason for setting aside
the electron conducted on May 20.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with their operations as set
forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial 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 thereof.
VI. THE REMEDY
I have found that UMW has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices and shall therefore recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative actions to effec-
tuate the Act.
I have also found that Burgreen (and its successor, Athens
Coal) and Marcoal have violated the Act by granting recogni-
tion and entering into bargaining agreements with UMW at
inappropriate times. I shall order Burgreen and Marcoal to
withdraw recognition from UMW and to cease giving effect
to the contract each has entered into with it.
Although it is customary to order an employer who has
unlawfully assisted a union by entering into a contract with
it at an inappropriate time to reimburse its employees for the
dues and fees they were forced to pay under a union security
clause in such a contract, I shall not do so here. Neither
Burgreen nor Marcoal recognized UMW because it preferred
it over SLU, but rather because of the economic coercion
which UMW was able to exert over them. Although this does
not justify or excuse their violation of the Act, it does affect
my view of what should in equity be done to remedy the
violations committed by the employers and UMW. Under the
circumstances here, to impose joint liability on employer and
union to reimburse the dues and fee illegally exacted from the
Burgreen and Marcoal employees would confer an inequita-
ble advantage on UMW which was primarily responsible for
imposing itself on the employees. I shall therefore recom-
mend that UMW alone be required to reimburse the dues and
fees which may have been required from the employees under
the illegal contracts entered into with interest at the rate of
6 percent per annum. This requirement, however, shall not be
imposed as to any employee of these employers who had
applied for membership in UMW before the contracts were
signed.
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. Burgreen and its successor Athens Coal Co., Marcoal,
Coalite, Huguley, and M & M are employers engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. UMW District 20 and SLU and its Locals 101, 292, 333,
274, and 174 are labor organizations within the meaning of
the Act.
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Burgreen , and its successor Athens Coal Co., have en-
gaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (2) by giving UMW exclusive representation rights and
a contract at a time when a real question concerning represen-
tation of its employees was pending and the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 10 had directed the holding of a Board elec-
tion.
4. Marcoal has engaged in unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) by giving UMW exclusive
representation rights and a contract at a time when Marcoal
had a valid existing bargaining agreement with SLU Local
292, and no question concerning representation could prop-
erly be raised.
5. UMW has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) by: (a) utilizing the assistance of Bur-
green and its successor Athens Coal Co., and of Marcoal in
obtaining recognition and contracts at inappropriate times;
(b) engaging in mass picketing which blocked ingress and
egress at Marcoal , Huguley , and M & M; and (c) threatening
employees with physical. harm if they continued working at
the M & M tipple , and by shutting off power at the Huguley
mine while employees were inside.
6. UMW has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(b)(7)(A) by picketing Marcoal , Coalite, Huguley,
and M & M with an object of forcing each of them to recog-
nize and bargain with it as the collective -bargaining repre-
sentative of their employees , and with a further object of
forcing or requiring the employees to accept or select it as
their collective-bargaining representative at a time when it
was not certified as such representative, and each of the em-
ployers had lawfully recognized SLU and one of its Locals as
the collective-bargaining representative of its employees and
when a question concerning representation could not be
raised under Section 9(c) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
I hereby issue the following recommended:15
ORDER
A. Respondent Burgreen Contracting Company, Inc., its
officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Continuing to recognize or bargain, or enforcing or
maintaining its collective-bargaining agreement with UMW,
or any successor thereto, as the statutory representative of its
employees unless and until UMW has been certified by the
Board.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from UMW, or
any successor thereto, unless and until such organization has
been certified by the Board as the statutory representative of
Respondent's employees.
(b) Set aside its existing collective-bargaining agreement
with UMW.
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions and recommended Order herein shall , as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
(c) Post at its mine and tipple in Winston County, Ala-
bama, copies of the notice marked "Appendix A. Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 10, shall, after being duly signed by representatives of
Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
B. Respondent Marcoal Inc., its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Continuing to recognize or bargain, or enforcing or
maintaining its collective-bargaining representative with
UMW, or any successor thereto, as the statutory representa-
tive of its employees unless and until UMW has been certified
by the Board.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from UMW, or
any successor thereto, unless and until such organization has
been certified by the Board as the statutory representative of
Respondent's employees.
(b) Set aside its existing collective-bargaining agreement
with UMW.
(c) Post at its mine near Brilliant, Alabama, copies of the
notice marked "Appendix B."18 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10, shall,
after being duly signed by representatives of Respondent, be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
C. Respondent United Mine Workers of America, District
20, its officers, agents , and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreements
entered into with Respondent Burgreen or its successor on or
about May 18, 1971, and with Respondent Marcoal on or
about June 8, 1971, or any extensions, renewals, or modifica-
tions thereof.
(b) Acting as the exclusive collective-bargaining represent-
ative of any of Respondent Employers' employees for the
purpose of dealing with said Respondent Employers concern-
1' In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall 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."
" 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 10, in writing within 20 days from
the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
See In. 16, supra.
See fn. 17, supra.
BURGREEN CONTRACTING CO. 1075
ing wages , rates of pay, hours of employment or other condi-
tions of employment, unless and until it is certified by the
Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of such em-
ployees.
(c) Restraining or coercing employees of Marcoal, Inc.,
Huguley & Son Coal Company, Inc., or M & M Coal Co.,
Inc., by mass picketing conducted in such a manner as to
cause employees to fear physical injury or for their safety, in
entering , leaving , or remaining within their working areas.
(d) Picketing or causing to be picketed or threatening to
picket Marcoal, Inc., Coalite, Inc., Huguley & Son Coal
Company, Inc., or M & M Coal Co., Inc., under conditions
prohibited by Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act, where an object
thereof is forcing or requiring said employers to bargain with
them as the collective-bargaining representative of their em-
ployees, or forcing or requiring said employees to select or
accept United Mine Workers of America District 20 as their
collective-bargaining representative during any period when
said employers are recognizing another union as bargaining
representative of such employees and a question concerning
representation may not appropriately be raised.
(e) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees
of Burgreen, Marcoal, Coalite, Huguley, or M & M in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Reimburse all dues and initiation fees with interest at
the rate of 6 percent per annum to all past and present em-
ployees of Burgreen and Marcoal who applied for member-
ship in UMW on or after May 18, 1971, in the case of Bur-
green and on or after June 8, 1971, in the case of Marcoal.
(b) Post at its offices and meeting halls and at the office and
meeting halls of all Locals within the jurisdiction of District
20, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix C."20
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 10, after being duly signed by authorized
representatives, shall be posted by United Mine Workers of
America District 20, immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Additional copies of Appendix C shall be signed by an
authorized representative of UMW and shall be returned
forthwith to the said Regional Director for posting by Bur-
green , Marcoal, Coalite, Huguley, and M & M, where notices
to employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken
to comply herewith.""
Case 10-RM-562 is hereby severed from the consolidated
proceeding, and transferred to the Regional Director for Re-
gion 10 for further processing.
See fn. 16, supra.
See fn. 17, supra.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT recognize or bargain with United Mine
Workers of America, District 20, nor will we enforce or
maintain any collective-bargaining agreement with it, as
the statutory representative of our employees unless and
until it has been certified by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the right guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act to join or not to join any labor
organization.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from
United Mine Workers of America, District 20, until it
has been certified by the National Labor Relations
Board as the representative of our employees.
WE WILL set aside our existing collective-bargaining
agreement with United Mine Workers of America, Dis-
trict 20.
Dated By
BURGREEN
CONTRACTING COMPANY,
INC. AND ITS
SUCCESSOR,
ATHENS COAL CO.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
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 compliance with its provisions may be directed to
the Board's Office, Peachtree Building Room 701, 730 Peach-
tree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone 404-
526-5760.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT recognize or bargain with United Mine
Workers of America, District 20, nor will we enforce or
maintain any collective-bargaining agreement with it, as
the statutory representative of our employees unless and
until it has been certified by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the right guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act to join or not to join any labor
organization.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from
United Mine Workers of America, District 20, until it
has been certified by the National Labor Relations
Board as the representative of our employees.
WE WILL set aside our existing collective- bargaining
agreement with United Mine Workers of America, Dis-
trict 20.
MARCOAL, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days the Board's Office, Peachtree Building Room 701, 730 Peach-
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or tree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia' 30308, Telephone 404-
covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this 526-5760.
notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to