Carpenters Local 891

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1967

164 N.L.R.B. 251 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

CARPENTERS LOCAL 891 251
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, Local 891 , AFL-CIO,
and Laborers ' International Union of North
America, Local 490 , AFL-CIO, and Bryant
Sheet Metal Co., Inc. Case 26-CC-103.
were filed by the General Counsel and the
Respondents.
Upon the basis of the stipulation, the briefs, and
the entire record in the case, the Board2 makes the
following findings:
May 2, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
Upon charges duly filed on September 6, 1966, by
Bryant Sheet Metal Co., Inc., herein called Bryant
Sheet Metal, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board by the Regional Director for
Region 26 issued a complaint dated September 21,
1966, against the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, Local 891, AFL-CIO, and
Laborers' International Union of North America,
Local 490, AFL-CIO, herein respectively called
Carpenters Local 891 and Laborers' Local 490, and
collectively called Respondents, alleging that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint,
and notice of hearing were duly served upon the
parties. On September 27, 1966, the Respondents
filed an answer admitting certain allegations of the
complaint, but denying the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
On November 3, 1966, the Respondents, the
Charging Party, and the General Counsel entered
into a stipulation and filed a joint motion to transfer
this proceeding directly to the Board for findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and the issuance of a
Decision and Order after the filing of briefs and
without further hearing. The stipulation states in
substance that the parties waive their rights to a
hearing before a Trial Examiner and to the issuance
of a Trial Examiner's decision, and that the charge,
complaint, answer, stipulation, and the transcript of
testimony and exhibits received in evidence at a
hearing before a United States District Court,
Western District of Arkansas, Hot Springs Division,
in the case of John J. A. Reynolds, Jr., Reg. Dir. v.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, Local 891 and Laborers'
International Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
Local 490, Civil Case No. 1044,1 should constitute
the entire record in this case. On November 10,
1966, the Board approved the stipulation, ordered
transferral of the proceeding to the Board, and
granted permission to the parties to file briefs. Briefs
' Pursuant to a proceeding under Section 10(1) of the Act, an
order temporarily enjoining Respondents' picketing issued on
October 1, 1966
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Bryant Sheet Metal is an Arkansas corporation
with its only plant and place of business located in
Hot Springs, Arkansas, where it is engaged in the
building and construction industry as an installer
and erector of sheet metal on various construction
jobs. During the past year, Bryant Sheet Metal, in
the operation of its business, performed services
valued in excess of $50,000 in the State of Arkansas
for firms engaged in interstate commerce within the
meaning of the Act. At times material herein, Bryant
Sheet Metal had contractual relations with Arkansas
corporations Pickens-Bond, Inc. (herein called
Pickens), Pharoah Construction Company (herein
called Pharoah), John B. May Company (herein
called May), Wall Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc.
(herein called Wall), and The General Air
Conditioning Co. (herein called General). In the
operations of their business, Pickens, Pharoah, May,
Wall, and General are all engaged in the building
and construction industry and each annually
receives products valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points located outside the State of
Arkansas, and are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Earl Hall (herein called Hall), is an individual
proprietor engaged in the building and construction
industry as a general contractor in Hot Springs,
Arkansas.
On the basis of the foregoing, the parties admit,
and we find, that Bryant Sheet Metal is, and has
been at all times material herein, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. We
also find that Pickens, Pharoah, May, Wall, General,
and Hall are persons engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 891, AFL-CIO, and Laborers'
International Union of North America, Local 490,
AFL-CIO, are, and have been at all times material
to this case, labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a
three - member panel.
164 NLRB No. 43
252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
As noted, Bryant Sheet Metal operates as a sheet
metal contractor in Hot Springs, Arkansas. Its four
to seven employees are covered by a collective-
bargaining agreement between the Company and
Local 249 of the Sheet Metal Workers Union. In the
period covered by the complaint, Bryant Sheet
Metal was engaged in performing sheet metal work
for May, a plumbing and air-conditioning
subcontractor of general contractor Pickens, on the
construction of an addition to the Arlington Hotel in
Hot Springs, and for Wall and General, the
respective subcontractors of general contractor
Pharoah, for the construction of additions to the
State of Arkansas Rehabilitation Center in Hot
Springs and the Hot Springs Country Club.
Sometime in June,3 William J. Bryant, the
majority shareholder of Bryant Sheet Metal, acting
in his individual capacity and not as an official or
agent of Bryant Sheet Metal, contracted with Earl
Hall for the construction of a personal residence.
Prior to the selection of Hall, Bryant received a
telephone call from Carl Dicus, business agent of
Laborers' Local 490 and president of the Southwest
Arkansas Building and Trades Council. Dicus, who
had learned of Bryant's intention to build a house,
asked Bryant to hire Floyd Berry, a contractor-
member of Carpenters Local 891, to build Bryant's
home. Although Bryant agreed to consider Berry, he
subsequently awarded the contract to Hall, a
nonunion contractor who had submitted the lowest
bid. The parties stipulated that in July, shortly after
Hall began work on Bryant's home, Dicus caused
the homesite to be picketed with a sign which read
as follows:
INFORMATION ONLY
Carpenters Local 891 & Laborers Local 490
Protest the undercutting of Union Wages
and Conditions by
EARL HALL
our dispute only with
EARL HALL
and with no other Employer
During the course of the picketing , Dicus arranged
a meeting with Bryant , Duey Breckenridge , business
agent of Carpenters Local 891 , and Charles Housley,
owner of Housley Roofing Company. At that
meeting, the union representatives protested the use
of nonunion carpenters on the construction of
Bryant's residence. Bryant asked "what the
difference was if [he] built a house with nonunion
carpenters if their people used nonunion sheet
metal ." Breckenridge replied that Bryant "didn't
have any business doing all the work in town
anyway," and Dicus added that he "was interested
in looking out after his own people." Following the
meeting, no further conversation was had between
the union representatives and Bryant regarding the
construction of his home.
Albert King, treasurer of Pharoah, testified that in
early August, Dicus and Breckenridge visited him,
and Dicus stated that Bryant was building a home
and was "using a nonunion contractor on it," and
"he basically wanted to contact me [King] or the
company [Pharoah] to see basically what they could
do about having labor problems out there." Dicus
further stated, according to King, that "if Bryant
continued like he was they would consider him, or
declare him an unfair contractor on commercial
work that Bryant was doing either directly or
indirectly for us [Pharoah] on our projects."
Although the complaint does not allege
Respondents' picketing of Hall at the home
construction site as violative of the Act, the General
Counsel contends that the foregoing evidence shows
that it was the Respondents' intent to involve Bryant
and other employers in their dispute with Hall.
1. Arlington Hotel project: On the afternoon of
August 23, while Bryant Sheet Metal was working at
the Arlington job, Jim Locklar, superintendent for
Rickens, observed Dicus and Breckenridge talking
to stewards of various crafts at the jobsite. When
Locklar asked if anything was wrong, Dicus replied
that they were just checking on job conditions. The
following morning Bryant Sheet Metal employees
appeared at the jobsite as usual , but the laborers and
carpenters failed to report for work. As a result of
their absence on August 24, the following telephone
conversations occurred that day. Arlington Hotel
Company's Vice President Burford inquired of
Dicus why the laborers and carpenters had failed to
report. Burford testified that Dicus replied that
"there was no problem with the Arlingon Hotel or
with Pickens-Bond," but indicated that the trouble
was with Bryant Sheet Metal Company. In response
to Burford's remark that Bryant was not working for
Arlington or Pickens, but was "a subcontractor of a
subcontractor ," Dicus stated , according to Burford,
that "he hoped to prevail on me and Jack Pickens to
get Mr . Bryant to come sit down and have a meeting
with him." Dicus did not, however, reveal to Burford
the nature of the problem with Bryant.
In a conversation with Superintendent Locklar the
same day, Dicus' explanation for the absence of the
laborers and carpenters was that "the Building and
Trades Council had declared Bryant Sheet Metal an
unfair contractor" for the reason that "Bryant was
9 Unless otherwise designated all dates refer to 1966
CARPENTERS LOCAL 891 253
building a home out here and using a nonunion
contractor." Dicus also asked Locklar if he could
keep Bryant Sheet Metal off the job until he could
meet with Bryant, and Locklar informed him that
Bryant's crew had completed its current work and
would not have to come back to the Arlington job for
2 weeks.
In a later conversation the same day, Dicus told
Locklar that the laborers and carpenters "would be
back on the job the next morning ... that this thing
with Bryant can get serious, and it may even lead to
picket lines."
The laborers and carpenters reported to the
Arlington jobsite the following day, but Bryant's
crew did not work on that project again until
September 6. Thus, the 1-day work stoppage on
August 24 constituted the only incident at the
Arlington Hotel project.
2. Rehabilitation Center jobsite: On August 26,
when Bryant Sheet Metal employees Kilgore and
Kimberly arrived at the Rehabilitation Center jobsite
at 8 a.m., the laborers were on the job. However,
after Bryant's employees unloaded their trucks, the
laborers left the construction site and did not work
the rest of that day. No work was performed over the
weekend, August 27 or 28, but when Bryant's
employees reappeared on August 29, 30, and 31, the
laborers again walked off the job and refused to work
on each of those occasions.
Kilgore testified that on August 31, while he was
standing with Woods, a lath and plaster contractor,
at the Rehabilitation jobsite after all of the laborers
except Boling had left the site , Boling approached
them and said to Woods that "he had to go down to
the Union Hall and that they would not let him
work."4 Dicus also testified that he spoke with
Boling in the union hall in the last part of August. On
that occasion, according to Dicus, Boling asked
"what is this all about ... am I supposed to work or
not work," and Dicus replied, "you do what you want
to do ... go to work, or stay, that is up to you."
3. The Country Club project: On September 2,
the laborers and carpenters were at the Country
Club jobsite before Bryant's employees arrived.
When Bryant's crew began unloading materials, the
laborers and carpenters stopped working and, after
asking for and receiving their paychecks, left the
jobsite. Bryant's employees did not work on
September 3, 4, or 5. However, when they returned
on September 6, the laborers and carpenters who
were on the project again walked off the job. The
laborers and carpenters returned to the jobsite the
following day and worked alongside Bryant's
employees thereafter.
Kilgore gave testimony concerning a conversation
with a laborer named Waterman on September 2 at
the Country Club jobsite.5 Kilgore asked Waterman
why the laborers were walking off, and Waterman
replied, "I am just doing what I am told to do," and
then changed his answer to, "I am just doing what is
suggested." Although Waterman did not testify,
Dicus' testimony contained a denial that he had ever
instructed Waterman not to work on any specific
job.
The record also shows that at a meeting of the
Southwest Arkansas Building and Trades Council
on September 2, presided over by Dicus and
attended by Breckenridge and L. B. Freeman,
business agent for Local 249 of the Sheet Metal
Workers Union, among others, Dicus raised the
subject of Bryant' s using a nonunion contractor for
the construction of his residence in Hot Springs.
Freeman remarked at this meeting that he had no
problems with Bryant, and that he did not try to tell
Bryant how to build his home. Dicus stated that
since Bryant would not work with any of the crafts
on his house, "they intend to hurt Mr. Bryant all they
could, as far as getting work." Freeman indicated his
oppostion to the Council's position on the grounds
that it would discriminate against the Sheet Metal
Workers. Also, in response to a statement made in
the same meeting to the effect that it had been heard
that Bryant himself was paying substandard wages,6
Freeman said that to his knowledge Bryant was not
paying substandard wages. After this meeting, there
was a further work stoppage at the Country Club
project on September 6, but as noted above, it only
lasted 1 day.
Thereafter, between September 9 and 30, picket
Clifton Ussery, acting pursuant to orders by Dicus,
patrolled Bryant Sheet Metal's place of business
with the following sign:
INFORMATIONAL ONLY
Carpenters Local 891 & Laborers Local 490
Protests the Undercutting of Union Wages
and Conditions by
BRYANT SHEET METAL, INC.
IN [sic] HIS ALLY* EARL HALL
Our Dispute Only with
BRYANT SHEET METAL, inc.
IN [sic] HIS ALLY EARL HALL
and with NO OTHER Employer
With respect to this picketing activity, it is
undisputed that all of Bryant 's employees crossed
the picket line and continued to perform their work
duties. Clifton Ussery testified that he instructed
* Boling did not testify at the 10(l) injunction hearing
5 Waterman did not testify at the 10 ( l) injunction hearing
6 The testimony of employee Jerry Reed, former employee John
Reed, and the latter's wife to the effect that Bryant Sheet Metal
was paying substandard wages was , as indicated above, denied by
Sheet Metal Workers ' Business Agent Freeman
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
drivers that it was all right to cross the picket line,
and that there was no interference with deliveries by
suppliers of Bryant. However, according to the
testimony of Bryant employee Kilgore, Superior Van
Lines, which customarily delivered to Bryant,
refused to do so during the course of the picketing,
and as a result, Bryant dispatched various
employees including Kilgore to pick up needed
supplies from Superior.
B. Contentions of the Parties
Respondents deny responsibility for the work
stoppages by their members at the three jobsites on
the grounds that the General Counsel has failed to
establish that such stoppages were induced by any
conduct on the part of the Respondents. They
further contend that the picketing at the office of
Bryant Sheet Metal was lawful primary picketing in
furtherance of their dispute over substandard wages
paid by Bryant Sheet Metal, and that the picketing
was totally ineffective in any event.
The General Counsel, on the other hand, asserts
that the record clearly reveals that Respondents'
real dispute involved the construction of Bryant's
personal residence by nonunion contractor Earl
Hall, and that Respondents' threats to neutral
employers and inducement of employees of neutrals
to withhold their labor from their employers had an
unlawful objective of bringing pressure upon Bryant
to cease doing business with Hall. The General
Counsel also contends that the picketing at Bryant
Sheet Metal had the same unlawful objective, and
cannot be justified by Respondents' erroneous
characterization of Bryant Sheet Metal as an ally of
Hall. Moreover, the General Counsel argues that
Respondents' assertion that the picketing of Bryant
Sheet Metal was in protest of its alleged substandard
wages was pretextual.
Conclusions
It is clear from the record, as evidenced by
Respondents' picketing directed against Earl Hall,
whom William Bryant had engaged to build his
personal residence, that Respondents had a primary
dispute with Hall because that company did not
employ members of Respondents, and that
Respondents' inducements of neutral employers and
threats to neutrals, as found hereinafter, had as an
object the cessation of the business relationship
between Bryant and Hall.7 Thus, in our view,
Respondents' requests for assistance from neutrals
to resolve the "problem with Bryant"; their demand
that Bryant Sheet Metal's employees be kept off the
Arlington job until a meeting could be arranged with
Bryant; and their warning that because Bryant was
having a home built by a nonunion contractor, he
would be declared an unfair contractor, and that the
situation might even lead to picket lines, amply
demonstrated Respondents' plan to enmesh neutrals
in the controversy with Hall, with an objective of
bringing pressure to bear upon Bryant to cease doing
business with Hall.
The remaining evidentiary question is whether the
ensuing work stoppages at the three jobsites
between August 23 and September 6 were
attributable in each instance solely to the individual
decisions of all of the carpenters and laborers, as
urged by Respondents, or to inducements by
Respondents. The latter explanation, in our opinion,
is by far the most plausible. Indeed, we note that
Dicus and Breckenridge visited the Arlington Hotel
project on August 23, spoke to union stewards of
various crafts, and departed. The following day the
carpenters and laborers failed to report for work.
When Dicus learned that Bryant's employees would
not be needed for 2 weeks Dicus gave
Superintendent Locklar assurances that the
carpenters and laborers would return to work the
next day, which they did. This episode, in our view,
clearly demonstrates that decisions whether or not
carpenters and laborers would work while Bryant's
employees were on the job were, in fact, union
decisions, not those of their members who
coincidentally, although acting as individuals, all
happened to be of one and the same mind.
Accordingly, we are persuaded that the further
walkoffs by Respondents' members, on the six
subsequent occasions when Bryant's employees
appeared at the Rehabilitation Center and Country
Club projects, also occurred pursuant to
Respondents' planned course of action.8
Furthermore, Dicus' announced intention on
September 2, on behalf of the Southwest Arkansas
Building and Trades Council, "to hurt Bryant all
they could, as far as getting work,"9 makes it further
evident that the subsequent work stoppages were
induced by Respondents to implement the policy
announcement. Moreover, the statements of
laborers Boling and Waterman bolster our
conclusion that the work stoppages at the
Rehabilitation Center and Country Club were
induced by Respondents' officials.
As an object of Respondents' inducement of
employees of neutrals to withhold their labor from
their employers was to force the neutrals to cease
' See International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 9 We find that Dicus and the Council spoke on behalf of the
No 12, AFL-CIO (B R Schedell Contractor, Inc) 145 NLRB Respondents on this occasion. Local 513, International Union of
351 Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Kiewit-Centennial), 163 NLRB
8 Cf Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical 400
Workers, AFL-CIO (New York Telephone Company), 162 NLRB
703, Local 349, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO (Dade Sound and Controls), 149 NLRB 430
CARPENTERS LOCAL 891 255
doing business with Bryant Sheet Metal so as to
bring about a cessation of business between Bryant
and Hall, we find that Respondents' conduct
violated Section 9(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. First,
we note that the evidence does not support
Respondents' assertion, as depicted on the legend of
the picket, that Bryant Sheet Metal was an ally of
Earl Hall. For, there is no evidence that Hall had any
financial interest in Bryant Sheet Metal or occupied
any official position in that Company.10 Nor is there
any evidence to support a finding that the
construction of Bryant's personal residence was a
joint venture of Hall and Bryant Sheet Metal or that
Bryant Sheet Metal furnished any labor or materials
for the home construction. Accordingly, there is no
basis for concluding that an ally relationship existed
between Bryant Sheet Metal and Hall.
Nor can we accept Respondents' contention that
their picketing of Bryant Sheet Metal was for a
lawful object, i.e., to protest that company's alleged
substandard wages. As noted, Freeman, the Sheet
Metal Workers' business agent who serviced
Bryant's union contract, was present at the meeting
at which Bryant's alleged substandard rates were
mentioned by Dicus, and specifically denied that
such was the case. Furthermore, although the
Respondents were admittedly concerned with the
protection of the wages received by carpenters and
laborers, they offered no explanation for their
interest in sheet metal workers' wages, particularly
when the sheet metal workers' own union
representative voiced no such concern. It is
therefore obvious that Respondents' picketing of
Bryant Sheet Metal on the asserted claim that
Bryant was paying substandard wages was adopted
as a device to obscure their true unlawful object.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the entire record in the case, we adopt the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Bryant Sheet Metal Co., Inc., is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. Pickens-Bond, Inc., Pharoah Construction
Company, John B. May Company, Wall Heating &
Plumbing Co., Inc., The General Air Conditioning
Co., and Earl Hall are persons engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, Local 891, AFL-CIO, and Laborers'
International Union of North America, Local 490,
AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. By inducing individuals employed by Pickens,
Pharoah, May, Wall, or General to engage in a strike
or refusal in the course of their employment to
perform services, with an object of forcing William J.
Bryant to cease doing business with Earl Hall,
Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. By threatening, coercing, and restraining the
aforesaid persons and Bryant Sheet Metal, with an
object of forcing William J. Bryant to cease doing
business with Earl Hall, Respondents have engaged
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth above
occurring in connection with the activities of
Pickens, Pharoah, May, Wall, General, and Hall as
set forth 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.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order that
they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action that we find necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board orders that the Respondents,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 891 , AFL-CIO, and Laborers'
International Union of North America , Local 490,
AFL-CIO, their officers , agents, and
representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging
employees of Pickens - Bond , Inc., Pharoah
Construction Company, John B. May, Wall Heating
& Plumbing Co., Inc., and The General Air
Conditioning Co., or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to
engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of their
employment to use, manufacture , process,
transport , or otherwise handle or work on any goods,
10 See Grain Elevator, Flour and Feed Mill Workers,
International Longshoremen Association, Local 418, AFL-CIO
(Continental Grain Company), 155 NLRB 402, 403-406.
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
articles, materials , or commodities , or to perform
any services where an object thereof is to force or
require William J. Bryant, or any other person, to
cease doing business with Earl Hall, under
circumstances prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of
the Act.
(b) Threatening , coercing , and restraining Bryant
Sheet Metal Co., Inc., Pickens-Bond, Inc., Pharoah
Construction Company, John B. May Company,
Wall Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc., and The
General Air Conditioning Co., or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce where an object thereof is to force
William J . Bryant to cease doing business with Earl
Hall, under circumstances prohibited by Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at their business offices and meeting
halls, in Hot Springs, Arkansas, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for Region 26, after being duly signed by authorized
representatives , shall be posted by Respondents
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 Respondents to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for
Region 26 sufficient copies of said notice, to be
furnished by him, for posting by Bryant Sheet Metal
Co., Inc., Pickens-Bond, Inc., Pharoah Construction
Company, John B. May Company, Wall Heating &
Plumbing Co., Inc., and The General Air
Conditioning Co., if willing.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
ii In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the
words "a Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA , LOCAL 891 , AFL-CIO, AND LABORERS'
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,
LOCAL 490 , AFL-CIO
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board , and in order to effectuate
the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , we hereby give notice that:
WE WILL NOT , in any manner prohibited by
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, (1) engage
in, or induce or encourage employees of
Pickens-Bond , Inc., Pharoah Construction
Company , John B . May Company , Wall Heating
& Plumbing Co ., Inc., and The General Air
Conditioning Co., or any other person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce , to engage in, a strike or refusal in
the course of their employment to perform any
services for their employers ; or (2) threaten,
coerce, or restrain any of the above-named
persons or Bryant Sheet Metal Co., Inc., or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce where in either
case an object thereof is to force or require
William J. Bryant to cease doing business with
Earl Hall.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD
OF CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 891, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
LABORERS'
INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF NORTH AMERICA,
LOCAL 490, 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, 746 Federal Office Building , 167 North Main
Street, Memphis, Tenessee 38103, Telephone
534-3161.