Carpenters Local Union No. 1028

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 1025 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1028 1025
in regard to these meetings allude that all employees were instructed that Mr.
Schwartz was to have complete charge of the operations and that he was the only
one who had authority to hire or fire , and all authority vested in any other employee
was thereby revoked . Notwithstanding the notice to all employees which was sub-
sequent to the election , the testimony of the leadmen reflect that their duties have
remained the same. The title "leadman" is not determinative , but was only one of
the factors to be considered in determining the status of the challenged employees .8
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Lawrence G. Schumacher is a plant clerical employee and included in the unit.
William Hines, Franklin J. Summe, Raymond Morath, Amzi Epeards, and Charles
H. Myers are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
8Poultry Enterprises , Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 216 F. 2d 798 ( C. A. 5) ; Ideal Roller & Manu-
facturing Company, 104 NLRB 931; W. F & John Barnes Company, 96 NLRB 1136;
Mother's Cake & Cookie Company, 105 NLRB 75; Angelo C Scavullo , et at., d/ b/a Legion
Utensils Company, 109 NLRB 1327; Mock, Judson, Voehringer Company of North Caro-
lina, Inc, 110 NLRB 437.
CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION No. 1028, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPEN-
TERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, and N. W. BLACK . Case No. 16-
CB-65 . March 21,1955
Decision and Order
On June 22, 1954, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his In-
termediate Report in this proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in vio-
lation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and 8 (b) (2) of the Act, and rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm-
ative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the In-
termediate Report and a brief in support thereof.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications 1 and
additions :
The Dennehy Construction Company is a partnership having its
principal office in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and at all times mate-
rial has been engaged, as general contractor under contract with the
Southern Memorial Hospital Foundation of Ardmore, Oklahoma, in
the construction of a hospital at Ardmore. Its contract for the con-
' Without determining whether a discriminatory refusal to hire occurred on September
17, 1953, a date beyond the Section 10 (b) period, it is clear that the Blacks requested,
and were refused , referral slips from Estes, the Respondent 's business agent, on September
28, 1953, a date within the Section 10 ( b) period.
111 NLRB No. 180.
1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
struction of the hospital approximates $1,250,000, about one-half of
this amount being paid from Federal funds.
The Dennehy Construction Company, as general contractor for the
Ardmore Hospital, has subcontracted the electrical, plumbing, heat-
ing, plastering, flooring, roofing, sheet metal, tiling, and acoustical
work on the job. It appears that the subcontractors purchase their
own equipment and supplies for which they are reimbursed by the gen-
eral contractor. During the past year structural steel, face brick, elec-
trical equipment, plumbing supplies, air-conditioning equipment, con-
crete mixers, motors, and lumber valued in excess of $1,000,000 was
shipped to the Dennehy construction sites including the Ardmore Hos-
pital within the State of Oklahoma. Over 50 percent of these mate-
rials and supplies were shipped in interstate commerce from points
outside the State. The record shows that of the materials and equip-
ment received from points outside the State, a considerable amount of
such materials and equipment was purchased by the subcontractors for
the Ardmore Hospital job. It appears from the record that although
The Dennehy Construction Company itself did not purchase mate-
rial and equipment valued in excess of $500,000 from outside the State,
the purchases of The Dennehy Construction Company together with
its subcontractors directly from outside the State for use on the Ard-
more Hospital site exceeded that amount. It appears further that The
Dennehy Construction Company, the general contractor, was solely
responsible for the performance and completion of the job.
In the future, the Board will assert jurisdiction over a general con-
struction contractor on the basis of the total volume of his business
or of the general construction which he undertakes to discharge.
In view of the foregoing, and as it apepars that The Dennehy Con-
struction Company and its subcontractors, together, purchased mate-
rials and equipment valued in excess of $500,000 from outside the State
of Oklahoma for use on the Ardmore Hospital job, we shall assert
jurisdiction?
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that Carpenters Local Union No. 1028, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and oJiners of America, AFL, its officers,
agents, successors, or assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Entering into or enforcing a preferential hiring agreement or
arrangement with The Dennehy Construction Company, its officers,
agents, successors, or assigns, to discriminate against employees or
prospective employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481.
CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1028 1027
(b) Causing or attempting to cause The Dennehy Construction
Company, its officers, agents, successors, or assigns, to discriminate
against employees or prospective employees in violation of Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees or pros-
pective employees of the above-named Employer in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that
such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized by
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Notify The Dennehy Construction Company, in writing, and
furnish copies thereof to N. W. Black and Tommie Black, that they
or any other qualified employee or prospective employee will not be
denied employment because of membership or nonmembership in the
Respondent except to the extent authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act. Said notification shall contain a statement to the effect that
the Respondent has no objection to the employment of N. W. Black
and Tommie Black by The Dennehy Construction Company.
(b) Make whole N. W. Black and Tommie Black for any loss of
pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." 3
(c) Post in conspicuous places at the business offices of the Re-
spondent, and in all places where notices or communications to its
members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached to the
Intermediate Report marked "Appendix A."' Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Mail to the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region signed
copies of the notice for posting, the Employer willing, on the bulletin
boards of The Dennehy Construction Company at its Ardmore Hos-
pital project, where notices to employees are customarily posted. Such
3 The remedy is amended to provide that the Respondent , in order to terminate its lia-
bility for further accrual of back pay to one or both of the charging individuals, must
notify N. W. Black and Tommie Black , as well as the Employer , that it has no objection
to their employment Local Union No 59 5 , International Association of Bridge, Struc-
tural and Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL, 109 NLRB 73
s This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner" the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is en-
forced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the
words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
344056-55-vol. 111-66
1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notices are to be posted and maintained for a period of sixty (60)
days after receipt by the Employer. Copies of the notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by an official representative of the Respondent, be
forthwith returned to the Regional Director for said posting.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, as to what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER MuRDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A charge having been duly filed and served, a complaint, amendment to complaint,
and notice of hearing thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, and an answer having been filed by the
above-named Respondent Union, a hearing involving allegations of unfair labor prac-
tices in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, was held in Ardmore, Okla-
homa, on May 25 and 26, 1954, before the duly designated Trial Examiner.
As to the unfair labor practices, the complaint as amended alleges, and the answer
denies, that the Respondent Union, on September 28, 1953, caused The Dennehy
Construction Company to refuse to hire N. W. Black and Tommie Black; entered into
and maintained a verbal agreement with the same Employer requiring referral by the
Union of all employee applicants; and by such conduct restrained and coerced em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
At the hearing all parties were represented, were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to
the issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed findings
of fact and conclusions of law. Argument was waived at the close of the hearing.
Following the hearing General Counsel and counsel for the Union informed the Trial
Examiner that each waived the privilege of filing a brief.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED
The Dennehy Construction Company is a partnership having its principal office
in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and at all times material has been engaged, under
contract with the Southern Memorial Hospital Foundation of Ardmore, Oklahoma,
in the construction of a hospital at Ardmore, as the general contractor. Such con-
struction began about June 1, 1953, and was continuing at the time of the hearing.
During the 12-month period before the hearing Dennehy purchased building mate-
rials and equipment valued at more than $1,000,000, more than 50 percent of
which was shipped in interstate commerce to the Ardmore Hospital site and other
construction sites in Oklahoma from points outside that State. Its contract with the
Southern Memorial Hospital Foundation for the construction of the hospital ap-
proximates $1,250,000, about half of this amount being paid from Federal funds.
It is found that The Dennehy Construction Company is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Carpenters Local Union No. 1028, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners
of America, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Events and issues
The major issue arises from the failure of Shelton M. Estes, business agent of
Local No. 1028, in the setting of an exclusive hiring agreement, to send or "refer"
CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1028 1029
to the Ardmore Hospital job two carpenters-N. W. Black and Tommie Black-
when specifically requested to do so by the Employer, Dennehy. There is no dispute
that the request was made,` that Estes failed to honor the request, and that an exclu-
sive hiring agreement was at the time in existence.
Briefly summarized the surrounding circumstances are as follows. Early in June
1953, when construction was begun, Estes and Dennehy entered into an oral agree-
ment which the business agent , as a witness for the Respondent Union, thus described:
I was assured by Mr. Gene Dennehy that this was a union company and that
they would hire union carpenters and that they would abide by our by-laws and
regulations and that the hiring hall arrangement was perfectly all right with them
because that is exactly what they wanted.
Estes further said that it was "a gentleman's agreement" that the Employer would
follow the rules and bylaws of Local No. 1028. The rules and bylaws are in evi-
dence. Among relevant portions of such documents are:
Rule I
Section 16. No carpenter shall at any time work on premises where non-
union carpenters are employed, unless they make application for membership,
or work for any contractor who employes [ sic] non-union carpenters on any
work in this jurisdiction.
Rule II
Section 1. On any job where three or more carpenters are employed there
shall be a foreman who is in possession of a current working card of this Local
Union.
Section 1, Article IX of the By-Laws
A foreman who . . . permits others than members of the United Brotherhood
to do carpenter work shall be debarred from acting as foreman for a period of
six months. .. .
Thus it is clear, and the Trial Examiner finds, that the complaint is sustained by
the evidence to the effect that an oral agreement between the Employer and the
Respondent Union, setting up closed shop conditions as to hiring, was entered into.
Credible evidence also establishes that this agreement was thereafter observed
and maintained in practice-at least until sometime in the early part of 1954-and
was in effect on September 28, 1953, when the Blacks were denied referral to the
job by the Union. D. J. Dennehy, one of the partners of the construction company,
testified that carpenters were obtained from no other source than Local No. 1028
from June 1953 until April 6, 1954. George Chapman, carpenters' general foreman
and a member of the Respondent Union, testified that he hired carpenters only
through Local No. 1028 and from no other source until-and his memory as to dates
on this point plainly was but an estimate-February or March 1954. Chapman
said that he had been warned by Dennehy, apparently when he became general
foreman on September 22, 1953, that he must observe the referral system of Local
No. 1028. And, as noted above, the bylaws of his local required that he hire only
fellow-members.
On September 17, 1953, N. W. Black came to the hospital job site and applied
to Chapman (who at the time was foreman) for work for himself and his son, as
carpenters. Chapman, who had worked with N. W. Black before and knew his
qualifications, said he needed and wanted them, but that they would have to clear
through Local No. 1028. He also warned Black that such clearance might be tough
because the local followed a "waiting list" in making referrals.
Both Blacks were at the time members of another local of the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters. On September 21 they "cleared" their union books into Local No.
1028, through Estes. On this occasion the business agent told Black that a waiting
list was followed in making referrals and Black, without then stating that he and his
son had jobs awaiting them at the hospital site, apparently voiced no objection to
this arrangement.
On Friday of the same week, September 25, both Blacks visited Estes, said they
wanted work at the hospital project where jobs were awaiting them, and asked how
many were ahead of them on the list. Estes told them about 30.1
The Blacks then proceeded to the job site, where they told Chapman what Estes
had said about 30 applicants being ahead of them. Chapman referred them to Gene
Dennehy, the superintendent, who suggested that Chapman try calling for the Blacks
1 Estes said that he did not recall this visit of the Blacks, upon whose credible testimony
the finding is made
1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as foremen. Chapman then told the Blacks to come back the next morning, since
he was busy at the time.
On Saturday morning, September 26, Chapman telephoned to Estes, told him he
had two men there, naming them, whom he would like to have sent out to the job
"as foremen." Estes agreed to the request. Chapman thereupon took the Blacks
to the job he wanted them to perform when, as expected, they were referred to the
site the following Monday morning.2
In explanation of the decision to call for the Blacks as foremen, it appears from
the testimony of both the foreman and Estes that the established system of referrals
by Local No. 1028 permitted an employer to call for foremen by name, while car-
penters generally could be called for only by the number needed. In effect, this
arrangement meant that an employer was permitted individual selection only as to
supervisors.
Early Monday morning the two Blacks went to the local office to obtain their
referral slips. Estes was on his way out and not only brushed aside their request
for the referrals but bluntly told them that as soon as he could get to the job site
there would be many more carpenters on the waiting list ahead of them. The Blacks
proceeded nevertheless to the hospital site, where they reported to Chapman and told
him of Estes' action.
In the meantime two other men, referred that same morning to the job by Estes,
had reported at the site. Chapman refused to employ them, telling them that he
had not called for them. One of them communicated with Estes, who promptly
hurried to the job site and, according to his own testimony, called the carpenters off
the job. They were not permitted to return for 2 or 3 days. Estes's own testimony
makes it clear that the prime reason for this precipitate action was the failure of the
Employer to hire the two men whom he had sent out to the job instead of the Blacks.
Upon learning of Estes' action, Chapman told the Blacks that "I am very sorry but
I have done all I can do." They were not hired, nor have they since then been
employed on the job, although it appears that since April 1954, according to
Dennehy, the Employer has not hired through Local No. 1028 exclusively.
B. Conclusions
General Counsel contends that the exclusive hiring agreement, described above,
constitutes on the part of the Union a violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2)
of the Act. The contention has merit. In particular the agreement is invalid in
that, by incorporating the local's trade rules and bylaws, it caused the Employer
to violate Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act by setting up a discriminatory hiring policy,
limiting such hiring to union members referred to it by Local No. 1028. Such
discrimination effectively restrains and coerces employees and prospective employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.3
General Counsel further contends that, by causing Dennehy to refuse to hire
the two Blacks because (among other reasons alleged in the complaint 4) they were
not "cleared by the said Respondent Union," the Union also violated Section 8 (b)
(1) (A) and (2) of the Act. This contention also has merit. The Employer
was caused by the action of Estes in calling the strike of the carpenters on Septem-
ber 28 to refuse to hire the Blacks. The admitted reason for the strike-the refusal
of the Employer to place the two men sent out in place of the Blacks-is a com-
ponent part of the guiding motive which caused action resulting in discrimination
against the Blacks, in a situation then governed by an illegal hiring agreement .5
Although, as noted above, it appears that since April 1954 the Employer has not
hired exclusively through Local No. 1028, and that to this extent the oral agreement
of June 1953 is not now being observed in practice, there is no evidence that it has
2 The finding as to the conversation between Chapman and Estes on this occasion is
based upon the credible testimony of the foreman and the inherent probabilities of the
circumstances surrounding the event. Estes' testimony to the effect that Chapman first
asked him for 2 carpenters, and then asked for the 2 Blacks as foremen, is not credited
His other testimony makes it clear that he was well aware, at the time, that the younger
Black held only an apprentice card, and obviously was not qualified as a foreman.
3Philadelphia Iron Works, Inc, 103 NLRB 596, enfd. 211 F 2d 937 (C. A. 3).
4 The complaint alleges a number of reasons for the causation which seem to the Trial
Examiner to be irrelevant and even inapplicable under circumstances of hiring. In the
latter category is the allegation that a reason for the causation was "other than failure
to tender periodic dues."
5 Local 595, International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL, etc., 108 NLRB 1070.
CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1028 1031
formally been abandoned . A remedy believed to be suitable will therefore be
recommended.
Also, although from the present record it might be speculated that had the Blacks
applied for jobs after April 6, 1954, they might have been hired, in view of the
Union 's overt action directed against their employment in September 1953, and the
absence of any evidence that such action has since then been remedied or disavowed,
the Trial Examiner must hold the Respondent Union accountable for the continuing
failure of the Employer to hire them , until such time as the Union informs the
Employer, in writing, that it has no objection to their hiring.
As to the claim , made during the hearing by counsel for the Respondent Union,
that the complaint should be dismissed because the evidence establishes that the
Employer sought the employment of the Blacks as foremen , unprotected by the Act,
the Trial Examiner is unable to agree that the evidence establishes the fact. What-
ever the words used by Chapman in calling for the Blacks "as foremen ," the Trial
Examiner cannot believe that Estes misunderstood the obvious nature of the call-
a ruse whereby Chapman, a foreman member of Local No . 1028 , believed he could
circumvent the carpenters ' waiting list. His own testimony makes it plain that Estes
well knew the younger Black was only an apprentice carpenter.6
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section 111, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Employer involved described in section I, above,
have a close , intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the
Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that the Respondent make N. W. and Tommie Black whole
for any loss of pay suffered by them as the result of the Union's unlawful conduct,
by paying to them a sum of money equal to that which they would normally have
earned as wages from September 28, 1953, to the date they are hired by the Em-
ployer, The Dennehy Construction Company. In computing the amount of back
pay due to the Blacks , the customary formula set forth in F W. Woolworth Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289, shall be applied. It will further be recommended that the
Respondent may terminate its liability for further accrual of back pay to one or both
of the charging individuals by notifying the Employer herein involved that it has no
objections to their reinstatement . The Respondent shall not be liable for any back
pay accruing after 5 days from the giving of such written notice.
The unlawful conduct of the Respondent found herein indicates a purpose to limit
the lawful rights of employees and applicants for employment . Such purpose is
related to other unfair labor practices , and it is found that the danger of their com-
mission is reasonably to be apprehended . It will therefore be recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist from in any manner restraining and coercing employees
and applicants for employment in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Dennehy Construction Company is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. Carpenters Local Union No. 1028 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners
of America , AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
3. By causing the aforementioned Employer to discriminate against applicants
for employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Respondent has
engaged in , and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (2) of the Act.
® Estes said that on September 21 the elder Black brought to him, for clearance into
Local No. 1028 , "a book for N. W. Black, journeyman , and a book for Tommie Black,
apprentice."
1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. By restraining and coercing employees and prospective employees of the Em-
ployer herein involved in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION No. 1028, UNITED BROTH-
ERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re-
lations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, we hereby notify our members and employees of The Dennehy
Construction Company that:
WE WILL NOT enter into or enforce a preferential hiring agreement or ar-
rangement with The Dennehy Construction Company, its officers; agents, suc-
cessors, or assigns , except to the extent permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause The Dennehy Construction Company,
its officers , agents, successors , or assigns , to discriminate against N. W. Black
and Tommie Black, or any other employee or prospective employee in violation
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees or prospective
employees of The Dennehy Construction Company in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make N. W. Black and Tommie Black whole for any loss of pay
suffered by them as a result of our having prevented their employment by The
Dennehy Construction Company.
WE WILL notify The Dennehy Construction Company that we have no ob-
jection to the hiring of N. W. Black and Tommie Black.
CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION No. 1028,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPEN-
TERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By----------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
EFCO MANUFACTURING, INC. and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO. Case No. 1-CA-1296. March, 21,1955
Supplemental Decision and Order
On April 15, 1954, the National Labor Relations Board issued a
Decision and Order in the above-entitled case,' finding, inter alia, that
the Respondent had violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act by
refusing to reinstate employees Charles W. Arnold, John W. Bunnell,
John Clancy, James Cummiskey, Albert Leduc, and Joseph A. Tru-
dell. On September 17, 1954, the Regional Director for the First
1 Efco Manufacturing, Inc, 108 NLRB 245
III NLRB No. 182.