Carpenters Dist. Council of Denver

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 688 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carpenters District Council of Denver & Vicinity,
AFL-CIO (Heflen Construction Company) and S &
S Installation, Inc. Case 27-CC-384
June 28, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On March 25, 1971, Trial Examiner Benjamin A.
Theeman issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practice and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth ih the at-
tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Re-
spondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion with a supporting brief and the General Counsel
filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
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 and hereby orders that the Re-
spondent, Carpenters District Council of Denver &
Vicinity, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN A. THEEMAN, Trial Examiner: The complaint'
dated December 11, 1970,2 alleges that Carpenters District
Council of Denver & Vicinity, AFL-CIO (Respondent or
Union), has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of
the National Labor Relations Act as amended, 29 U.S.C.,
Sec. 151, et seq. (the Act) by (a) inducing or encouraging
individuals on or about October 21, 1970, employed by
This term includes the complaint as amended at the hearing.
The original charge was filed by S & S Installation, Inc., on October 30,
1970
Heflen Construction Company (Heflen) to engage in a strike
or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform
services for Heflen, and (b) threatening, restraining and co-
ercing Heflen. The purpose of these acts was to force Heflen
to cease doing business with S & S Installation, Inc. (S & S).
Respondent in its answer denies the unfair labor practices.
A hearing was held before me on February 2 and 3, 1971,
in Denver, Colorado. All parties appeared and were repre-
sented by counsel. They were given full opportunity to par-
ticipate, adduce evidence, examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and argue orally. Briefs were submitted which have
been fully considered.
Upon the record in the case and from my observation of
the witnesses' I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Heflen, a Colorado corporation, is engaged in the business
of general contracting in the construction industry." In 1970
Heflen was the general contractor under contract with
Adams Street Properties (Properties) to construct an apart-
ment house 14 stories high consisting of 75 units at 77 South
Adams Street, Denver, Colorado. Except as stated hereafter,
the record contains no further business information about
Heflen.
S & S, incorporated as a Colorado corporation in May
1969, is engaged in the carpentry business . By subcontract
with Heflen dated August 4, 1970,5 S & S agreed to install
kitchen cabinets and facilities at the 77 South Adams Build-
ing. The total contract price was $3,400. In 1969, S & S had
a gross income of $25,000; in 1970, $28,600. The record
contains no breakdown of these figures for jurisdictional pur-
poses.
Properties in 1970 purchased for delivery and installation
at 77 South Adams Street $45,000 worth of kitchen products
from Frigidaire, Denver division. Frigidaire received the
products from points outside Colorado. Properties in 1970
also purchased approximately $45,000 worth of carpeting
from Sanders Carpeting which was shipped to Sanders from
points outside Colorado. The kitchen products were installed
in the building on Adams Street by plumber employees of the
plumbing subcontractor and by carpenter employees of
Heflen. The carpeting was installed by James Mason, a sub-
contractor' working on the premises.
' The testimony of all witnesses has been considered. In evaluating the
testimony of each witness, demeanor was relied upon. In addition, inconsis-
tencies and conflicting evidence were considered. The absence of a state-
ment of resolution of a conflict in specific testimony, or of an analysis of such
testimony, does not mean that such did not occur. See Bishop and Malco,
Inc., d/b/a/ Walker's, 159 NLRB 1159, 1161. Further, to the extent that
a witness is credited only in part, it is done upon the evidentiary rule that
it is not uncommon "to believe some and not all of a witness' testimony."
N.L.R.B. v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F.2d 749, 754 (C.A. 2.).
Puckett, union business representative, who in effect was qualified by
Union counsel as an expert in the construction industry defined a general
contractor as follows:
What is a general contractor?
A Our interpretation of a general contractor is a contractor that
takes a project and is responsible for all of the work including the
various subcontractors, plumbers, electricians, et cetera. In other
words, he has the entire project.
All dates herein relate to 1970 unless otherwise indicated
The record is somewhat unclear as to the exact status of Mason, but the
facts presented warrant the conclusion that he was a subcontractor working
at the 77 South Adams Street construction. Lydic, carpenter foreman for
Heflen, testified:
Q. Are you familiar with a Jim Mason?
A. Yes....
191 NLRB No. 134
CARPENTERS DIST . COUNCIL OF DENVER 689
The Board's present standard to establish jurisdiction over
nonretail enterprises requires that the business have an in-
direct inflow in excess of $50,000. See Siemons Mailing Ser-
vice, 122 NLRB 8185; R. W. Auker, etc., 173 NLRB No. 229.
The Board has established the principle that in cases involv-
ing alleged secondary boycott violations in the construction
industry the indirect inflow of the general contractor and the
subcontractors' may be combined in determining whether the
business in question meets the Board's jurisdictional stan-
dards. See International Association of Bridge, Structural &
Ornamental Iron Workers, etc., 175 NLRB No. 2; Oregon
L-M Relations Board, etc., 163 NLRB 1718; Sheet Metal
Workers International Association, etc., 131 NLRB 1196-
1200; McAllister Transfer Company, 110 NLRB 1769, and
cases cited in each.
There is no question that the construction of the building
at 77 South Adams Street is a nonretail enterprise. Applying
the principles stated in the previous paragraph to this case,
it is found that the evidence is insufficient to show that the
business of either S & S or Heflen meet the Board's jurisdic-
tional standards. However, Heflen as general contractor actu-
ally installed $45,000-worth of kitchen appliances which con-
stituted indirect inflow to the premises. Added to this sum is
the indirect inflow of the subcontractor, Mason, in the
amount of $45,000. The total indirect inflow of the contrac-
tors working on the building yields $90,000. Thus, the impact
of the labor dispute at 77 South Adams Street exerts an
impact upon commerce sufficiently great to require the Board
to take jurisdiction. On the above facts and the record as a
whole, it is found that Heflen and S & S at all times material
herein have been employers engaged in commerce or an in-
dustry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
II THE UNION
It is found that Carpenters District Council of Denver &
Vicinity, AFL-CIO, is now and at all times material herein
has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. S & S is an Independent Contractor
The S & S in the name of this corporation are Robert E.
Silcott and Harvey D. Swier. They and their wives comprise
all the officers, directors, and stockholders. On July 25, 1969,
S & S entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union. At all times mentioned herein Silcott and Swier were
card-carrying members of the Union in good standing.
Q. Can you tell us what he had to do with the installation of the
carpet?
A. Well, he or his men installed it...
Q Did you see Mr. Mason on the job at all at Adams Street9
A. Yes.
Q. What was he doing when you saw him9
A Checking on progress of work and future work when more apart-
ments would be ready.
Q. For what?
A. For carpet.
In other cases reference is made to the primary and secondary employ-
ers See International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, etc.,
176 NLRB No 56; Madison Building & Construction Trades Council, 134
NLRB 517, 519; Bartenders & Culinary Workers Union, Local No. 295 etc.,
161 NLRB 1458, 1462. Uniformity of terminology seems appropriate Be-
cause of the nature of the operation in the construction industry, the dollar
amounts flowing to and from the integrated construction directly and in-
directly are, in effect, the basis for the determination of jurisdiction See Ark
Readi-Mix Concrete Corporation, etc., 158 NLRB 675.
S & S was incorporated in May 1969 with Silcott as presi-
dent; Elaine Swier, vice president; and Swier, secretary and
treasurer.' The directors were the two Silcotts and Swier. The
stock of the S & S was owned by the two wives. The character
of the corporate business was the installation of building
material. In 1970 the corporation filed the annual report
required by the Colorado secretary of state.
In connection with its business S & S owned two trucks in
which the tools, power machines, and other tools owned by
the corporation were carried from job to job. The carpentry
equipment owned by the corporation were power tools such
as different kinds of power saws, belt sanders, table saws, and
joiners.
Since its inception, S & S has entered into and completed
73 jobs in the construction industry for 29 different contrac-
tors in the Denver area all performed on a lump sum contract
basis.'
S & S employed no people other than Silcott and Swier to
do carpentry work. S & S paid Silcott and Swier journeyman-
carpenters pay. On August 4, 1970, S & S entered into a
contract labeled a subcontract with Heflen to install kitchen
cabinets and vanities at 77 South Adams Street. The contract
was an oral acceptance by Heflen of a written proposal by S
& S. The final contract was written up in October 1970 at
which time it was dated August 4, 1970. The contract pro-
vided for the installation to be made according to the plans
and specifications of architect Roland H. Wilson, to his full
satisfaction. S & S agreed to begin the work promptly as soon
as notified and to complete the work as work progresses.
Heflen agreed to pay S & S a lump sum of $34,000 as follows:
100 percent of all labor and material placed in position by the
subcontractor to be paid by the 10th of the following month;
the final payment to be paid to the subcontractor within 30
days after completion of the work to the full satisfaction of
the architect or Heflen.
At 77 South Adams Street Heflen exercised no control of
the comings and goings of Silcott and Swier.10 Heflen's func-
tion was to supply the kitchen cabinets, to unload them from
trucks when delivered to the site, and to supply given quanti-
ties to a particular floor for installation by S & S. S & S
installed the cabinets working odd hours at no set time nor
on any particular day. S & S supplied the labor, the tools, and
such incidental items as screws, glue and nails. Heflen's fore-
men had no authority to and did not tell Silcott or Swier when
to come to work, what to do, how to install the cabinets," or
' Swier resigned in October 1970. The record contains no information
about his successor.
' The spread among these contractors was as follows- 14 contractors, one
job each; 7, two jobs each; 4, three jobs each; 1, four; 1, five; 1, six; and 1,
eighteen jobs each, respectively.
30 Heflen testified-
Q.... Under the contract that you had with S & S to install kitchen
cabinets at the Adams Street project, do you have authority to control
their hours of work?
A. Not really
Q. Can you tell us-
TRIAL EXAMINER Is this outside the terms of the contract, Mr.
Harmatz?
MR. HARMATZ Yes, it is my understanding it is not in the contract
A. (The Witness) Their contract was to install the cabinets as work
progressed. Whether they came in and worked at night or during the
day - it might cause some trouble as far as letting them on the job, but
I had no right to tell him how many men - if they could do it in two
hours and keep a day, this was the contract with S & S and as long as
they performed the job I had no control over them other than normal
subcontractor control of housecleaning and this type of thing.
13 The Union was aware that Silcott and Swier were not Heflen em-
ployees. Prickett testified:
Q. Do you mean the workmanship or the fact of who was doing it9
(Cont.)
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
how many men to use. The foremen did not call Silcott and
Swier each time they were absent unless the progress of the
work at the building indicated they should be there. The
foreman then called S & S at night to urge them to work on
the cabinets the following day.
The subcontract provided that it was the responsibility of
S & S to take out and pay for necessary workman's compensa-
tion and liability insurance and pay all other social security
and unemployment benefits and taxes required by law while
the contract was in existence.
The record contains no substantial evidence nor does the
Union point to any substantial evidence to show that S & S
was in fact and at law not an independent corporation em-
ploying Silcott and Swier. Substantial evidence in the record
shows that Silcott and Swier were employees of S & S. There
is no substantial evidence to support a finding that Silcott and
Swier were employees of Hefien at 77 South Adams Street.
S & S is a de jure and de facto
corporation
Sometime in late September 1970 Swier responded in vague
terms to questions that Prickett, the union business represent-
ative, asked about Silcott & Swier's connections with S & S.
This conversation took place at 77 South Adams Street after
S & S had started working there. Counsel for the Union
points out that Silcott testified at the hearing that he was a
journeyman carpenter employed by S & S, but did not testify
that he was the S & S president. Mainly on the basis of the
foregoing the Union takes the position that S & S was formed
to create a false impression with the Union that it was a
legitimate corporation when in fact it was formed for the
purpose of avoiding the obligations of Silcott and Swier to the
Union as members of the Union. The Union asks "the Trial
Examiner [to] look behind the mere form of the corporation
to the purpose for which the corporation, was formed, i.e., to
violate the constitutional mandate of the carpenters union
" The request of the Union is denied." As has been stated
the record as a whole clearly shows that S & S is an independ-
ent corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of
Colorado, operating and functioning according to those laws.
On the foregoing facts and on the record as a whole it is
found that S & S is an independent contractor" under subcon-
tract to Heflen and that neither Silcott nor Swier is an em-
ployee of Hefien.
B. The Merits of the Dispute
Sometime in September 1970, Prickett, the union business
representative, became aware that kitchen cabinets were
delivered to 77 South Adams Street. He made inquiries at the
construction site and was informed that S & S was the sub-
contractor that would do the installation. Prickett received
complaints from the carpenters at the site that "the installa-
A Not the workmanship , primarily the hours . Normally carpenters
work an eight to four thirty day and in this particular case these two
gentlemen would come in all hours of the day, work perhaps two or
three hours and leave. Perhaps work through the lunch hour, which is
irregular , and their actions were much different than the average car-
penter on the job. And by that I mean, instead of normally working,
they would be observed running, for example. This is a very unusual
thing for a carpenter to do . They would pick up a cabinet and run with
it down the hall. This is the thing that was brought to my attention on
the job.
The Union does not show that this request is either legally or properly
made before the Board.
" Cf. Carpet, Linoleum, Soft Tile and Resilient Floor Covering Layers,
etc., 176 NLRB No. 120
tion of the cabinets didn't seem to have the normal proce-
dures that carpenters normally [use].""
About October 1, Prickett questioned George Lydic, car-
penter foreman at 77 South Adams Street about S & S. He
told Lydic of his belief that S & S was operating in violation
of its union contract. Heflen was informed of this alleged
violation.
When S & S and Hefien entered into their agreement in
August, they anticipated that some difficulty with the Union
might arise. Hefien told S & S, he did not "want any union
problems," and that S & S will have to straighten them out
or Hefien' "will pull off the job." S & S agreed. As stated
above, by October 1, Hefien was aware of the union position
that S & S was in violation of its union contract. He spoke
to S & S who replied they "would get it taken care of." The
problem remained unsolved.
During the next 2 weeks Prickett continued his investiga-
tions about S & S, the identity of S & S and its employees.
After checking with the secretary of state's office, he verified
that Silcott and Swier were officers of S & S. Prickett then
pointed out to his superiors at the Union that Silcott and
Swier were violating the S & S agreement with the Union by
working as owners at the site without employing other car-
penters.15
In the morning of October 14, Prickett spoke to Heflen on
the telephone, advised him of the results of his investigations,
told him of the violations which could not continue and
arranged to meet him at the construction site at 1 p.m. Prick-
ett arrived early and told Lydic that S & S was not complying
with their union agreement. Swier was at work about that
time installing cabinets. Prickett and Lydic went to Swier,
told him that S & S was violating the union contract; that
Swier was not in good standing with the Union; that from
then on Hefien's carpenters were "going to have to set the
cabinets ... because Mr. Prickett says so." Prickett did not
permit Swier to finish what he was doing but told Lydic to
"Get him off the job." Swier stopped working and packed his
tools. As he was leaving he met Hefien and discussed the
problem with him. Both then met with Prickett and Lydic.
Hefien told Prickett that S & S was doing a good job and if
there was any way the problem could get worked out, Heflen
would be happy to have them back on the job. Prickett an-
swered, "You might as well set them yourselves because I
guarantee you they won't be back." Swier asked Heflen for
another week or so to get the problem straightened out and
then left. On the night of October 20, Silcott telephoned
Heflen to say they wished to retain the job and were returning
to work the next day.
In the morning of October 21, Heflen's foreman advised
him that S & S was back on the job.16 Heflen advised the
Union of this fact. In the conversation, the Union made
known to Heflen that they believed Heflen was in violation
of his union agreement and "asked him about rectifying it."
Further, Prickett told Hefien that S & S should not be on the
job because they were in violation of their contract; and that
S & S "being on the job was in essence violating" Hefien's
contract with the Union also."
Hefien and Prickett made an appointment to meet at the
site at,l p.m. When they met, Lydic was also present., Prickett
again told Hefien that 'S & S-was in violation of their contract
° See fn. 11.
Prickett listed other violations, which for the purposes of this proceed-
ing are cumulative.
6 S & S had shown up about 8.30 a.m.
" Heflen at all times took the position that if S & S was in violation of
the union agreement, Heflen was in violation of his union agreement because
both had the same agreement.
CARPENTERS DIST . COUNCIL OF DENVER 691
and as long as S & S remained on the job Heflen 's carpenters
could not . He also told Heflen that Heflen was in violation of
his contract if S & S was working on the job. Heflen was given
the choice either of getting S & S off the job or Prickett would
pull his carpenters . Heflen said "I don't think I can pull them
off." Prickett then ordered Lydic to "pull Heflen's men" off
the job." This was done. Heflen's carpenters did not go home.
Prickett told them to stay in that "perhaps things can be
worked out with Mr. Heflen."
Heflen told Silcott what had happened. The latter called his
attorney who advised him to stay on the job. Silcott informed
Heflen of this fact and he and Swier went back to work. The
other carpenters did not. A few minutes later, Heflen and
Prickett then got together. Upon Heflen's agreement to take
legal steps to get S & S off the job, Prickett allowed the men
to go back to work. The total time the carpenters were not
working was about 1 hour.
Heflen then spoke to Silcott and Swier. He explained his
situation to them, emphasizing the fact that his carpenters
would not go back on the job unless S & S left. He told them
he did not want to get into a bind with the Union, and he did
not want to get himself in a bind with S & S. He then asked
if they would leave the job so his carpenters could go back
to work. Heflen asked Silcott to have S & S' attorney call him.
That evening the attorney did and told Heflen that S & S
would not be back on the job. S & S did not show at 77 South
Adams Street thereafter. With the exception of some small
items that were handled by Heflen's carpenters, the job of
installing the kitchen cabinets was completed by another sub-
contractor.19
Conclusions as to the Merits
The record clearly shows that the Union had a labor dis-
pute with S & S over the latter's violations of its union con-
tract. The record further shows that the Union (a) induced
Heflen's carpenters to cease work, and further (b) coerced
Heflen by threatening to pull his carpenters and then in fact
pulling the carpenters off the job. The real target in this case
was S & S. The Union wanted to get S & S off the job; i.e.,
force Heflen to cease doing business with S & S. The Union
achieved its purpose. Under these circumstances, the Union
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
It is no defense that Heflen was in violation of Heflen's
union contract. Action violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) is neither justified nor condoned because of an existing
violation of a contract between the Union and an employer
neutral to the labor dispute between the Union and another
employer. See Carpenters District Council of New Orleans,
etc., 161 NLRB 1288, particularly fn. 1, enfd. (1969) 407
F.2d 804 (C.A. 5), and cases cited therein; Orange Belt Dis-
trict Council of Painters, No. 48 v. N.L.R.B., 365 F.2d 540,
enf. 153 NLRB 1196. See also the court's exposition on this
subject in an earlier case under the latter title 328 F.2d 534,
538, 539.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Union set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Heflen de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the
18 According to this credited portion of Heflen's testimony. Prickett tes-
tified that Heflen's ;violations were "all tied in ,with [S & S's] subcontract."
" Heflen stated that S & S had completed approximately 70 to 80 percent
of the job.
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
Having found that the Union has engaged in and is engag-
ing in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, it is recommended that the
Union cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and on the
entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Heflen Construction Company is engaged in commerce
and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) and Section 8(b)(4) of the Act.
2. Carpenters District Council of Denver & Vicinity, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by
Heflen Construction Company to engage in a strike or a
refusal in the course of their employment to perform services,
with an object of forcing Heflen Construction Company to
cease doing business with S & S Installation , Inc., the Union
has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
4. By threatening, coercing and restraining Heflen Con-
struction Company with an object of forcing it to cease doing
business with S & S Installation, Inc., the Union has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, there is issued the following recommended:Z°
ORDER
Carpenters District Council of Denver & Vicinity, AFL-
CIO, its officers , agents, successors and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or encouraging employees or individuals em-
ployed by Heflen Construction Company, or any other per-
son engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce with whom they have no primary labor dispute, to
engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment
to perform services where an object thereof is to force or
require the above -named persons to cease doing business with
S & S Installation, Inc. under circumstances prohibited by
Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
(b) Threatening, restraining , or coercing Heflen Construc-
tion Company or any other persons engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce , where an object thereof is
to force or require Heflen to cease doing business with S &
S Installation , Inc., under circumstances prohibited by Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is found
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices, meeting halls, and all other places
where notices to its members are customarily posted , copies
'° 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.
692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."" Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 27 shall, after being duly signed by a representative
of the Respondent , be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 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 altered , defaced , or covered by any other
material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writing,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
" 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."
22 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 27, in writing , within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT engage in or induce or encourage any
individual employed by Heflen Construction Company,
or by any other person engaged in commerce or in indus-
try affecting commerce , to engage in a strike or refusal
in the course of their employment to perform services,
where an object thereof is to force or require Heflen
Construction Company to cease doing business with S &
S Installation, Inc.
WE WILL NOT coerce or restrain Heflen Construction
Company or any other person engaged in commerce for
such an object.
CARPENTERS DISTRICT
COUNCIL OF
DENVER &
VICINITY, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(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, New
Custom House, Room 260, 721 19th Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202, Telephone 303-837-3551.