Carpet, Linoleum & Soft Tile Layers Union, Local 1238

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 5, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 41 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

CARPET, LINOLEUM & SOFT TILE LAYERS UNION, LOCAL 1238 41
Carpet , Linoleum and Soft Tile Layers Union, Local
1238 , affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Painters , Decorators and Paperhangers of
America , AFL-CIO and Northwest Floor Cover-
ing Association , Inc. Case 19-CB-1394
June 5, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS MCCULLOCH, BROWN , AND FANNING
On March 3, 1970, Trial Examiner George H.
O'Brien issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to
the Decision and 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
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Carpet, Linoleum and
Soft Tile Layers Union, Local 1238, affiliated with
the International Brotherhood of Painters, Decora-
tors and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner.
entitled matter in Seattle, Washington. The com-
plaint, issued November 6, 1969, is based on a
charge filed March 14, 1969, by Northwest Floor
Covering Association, Inc., and alleges that Car-
pet, Linoleum and Soft Tile Layers Union, Local
1238, affiliated with the International Brotherhood
of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, by demands on Miller's Interiors
and on Interior Supply Company that they with-
draw from and cease using Northwest Floor Cov-
ering Association, Inc., as their collective-bargain-
ing representative and by demands that each sign a
separate individual contract, refused to bargain with
the Association in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
restrained and coerced employers in the selection
of their representatives for purpose of collective
bargaining in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the
Act. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, in-
cluding my observation of the witnesses, and in
consideration of the oral argument by the General
Counsel and of Respondent's posthearing brief, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Northwest Floor Covering Association, Inc.,
herein called Association, is a nonprofit Washing-
ton corporation whose membership consists of vari-
ous employers in the Puget Sound area of Washing-
ton, including, inter alia , Interior Supply Company,
Inc., and Miller's Interiors, Inc., engaged in the
retail sale, distribution, or installation of floor
coverings. The Association was established and ex-
ists , inter alia , for the purpose of negotiating collec-
tive-bargaining agreements with Respondent on be-
half of its employer-members and on behalf of such
other employers as have given to the Association
written power of attorney. Employer-members of
the Association annually receive in excess of
$500,000 from their operations and cause to be
transported and delivered to their places of busi-
ness in the State of Washington carpets, tile, and
other goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 which are transported and delivered in in-
terstate commerce directly from points outside the
State of Washington.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE H. O'BRIEN, Trial Examiner: On Janu-
ary 13, 1970, a hearing was held in the above-
Carpet, Linoleum and Soft Tile Layers Union,
Local 1238, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and Paper-
hangers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Re-
spondent or Union , is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
183 NLRB. No. 7
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Bargaining
In December 1968 the Association and Respon-
dent began negotiations for a new contract to suc-
ceed the 3-year agreement which would expire pur-
suant to its terms and proper notice on March 1,
1969. There were a series of meetings and on
February 25, 1969, the negotiators arrived at an
agreement, subject to ratification by their respec-
tive principals. At a meeting held on Saturday,
March 1, the Respondent's membership voted to
reject the contract. The Association was notified by
telephone that, in the view of Respondent, the
provisions of the proposed contract on wages, on
pay for Saturday work, on overtime pay, and on the
timing of the dental plan contribution were un-
satisfactory. The strike began Monday, March 3.
There was po picketing during the first week of the
strike. From the second week of the strike until its
termination, March 25, 1969, pickets were sta-
tioned at the places of business of four of Respon-
dent's members. These were Interior Supply, Fryer-
Knowles, L & R Floors, and Mortrude Floor Com-
pany. There is no evidence in this record of any
picketing at any construction site.
While the strike was in progress the negotiators
had further meetings under the auspices of the
,United States Commissioner of Conciliation. On
March 25, 1969, the "Association Agreement" was
signed by Robert Q. Olsen on behalf of all members
of the Association and all other employers who had
given the Association a written power of attorney-
a total of about 35 employers, including Miller's In-
teriors, Interior Supply, and other comparatively
large employers. The "Association Agreement" was
signed by Robert T. Wolf, business manager for the
Union, and the strike ended. The Association made
concessions to Respondent on overtime, on the ef-
fective date of the dental increase , and on the
amounts and effective dates of the wage increases.
Respondent acceded to a change in the "audit"
clause requested by the Association.
In addition to the 35 employers represented by
the Association there are in the same area about
120 independent flooring contractors whose em-
ployees are represented by Respondent. Bargaining
between the Respondent and the independents is
described by Business Representative Anderson as
follows:
There was no formal negotiations with them as
a group, as independent, they come in and
negotiated as individual owners. They come in
and they were given a copy of the proposed
contract, they read it over, and they either
signed it or they did not.
Prior to the strike the Union had prepared 500
mimeographed copies of the "Independent Con-
tract" and a separate "Strike Addendum." As each
independent signed these two documents, his em-
ployees returned to work. Two members of the As-
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sociation signed the "Independent Contract" and
the "Strike Addendum" and their employees also
returned to work before the end of the strike.
B. The Bargaining Unit, the Association Agreement,
the Independent Contract, and the Strike Addendum
The parties stipulated that the bargaining unit
described in the "Association Agreement" is an ap-
propriate unit for collective bargaining . The em-
ployer scope of the unit is described therein as fol-
lows:
ARTICLE 2-BARGAINING UNIT
Section 1. This is a collective bargaining
agreement between Carpet, Linoleum and Soft
Tile Layers Union Local No. 1238 (referred to
as the Union) and Northwest Floor Covering
Association, Inc. (referred to as the Associa-
tion). This Agreement shall be binding upon all
persons, firms and corporations who have (1)
signed this agreement, or (2) expressly or im-
pliedly authorized some other person to sign
on their behalf, or (3) who have made any
trust fund contributions to any of the trust
funds referred to in Article 15 of the Agree-
ment, provided, however, that this stipulation
shall not be applicable if the Employer's agree-
ment has been cancelled.
Section 2. The Union and the Employer by
entering into this Agreement intend to and do
hereby establish a multi -employer collective
bargaining unit. Such unit shall include, and
this agreement shall apply to all Employers
who are contractor members of the Associa-
tion on the date of the execution of this Agree-
ment . Any Employer who joins the Association
as a contractor member during the term of this
Agreement shall also by virtue of such mem-
bership be a part of such collective bargaining
unit and shall be subject to the terms of this
Agreement. Any Employer who is bound by
this Agreement, regardless of whether such
Employer is or becomes a member of the As-
sociation , shall thereby become a member of
the multi-employer collective bargaining unit
established by this Agreement.
The Independent Contract recites:
ARTICLE 2: BARGAINING UNIT
Section 1: This is a collective bargaining
agreement between Carpet, Linoleum and Soft
Tile Layers Union Local No. 1238 (referred to,
as the Union) and (referred to as the Em-
ployer). This Agreement shall be binding ....
The remaining text of section 1 and the entire
text of section 2 is the same as the corresponding
clauses of the "Association Agreement."
The differences between the "Association Agree-
ment" and the "Independent Contract" are sub-
CARPET, LINOLEUM & SOFT TILE LAYERS UNION, LOCAL 1238 43
stantial . The "Association Agreement" is between
the Association and the Union . No employer is
named therein . The signature of executive secretary
binds all employers whom the Association
represents . The "Independent Contract" is a
private agreement between the Union and the in-
dividual employer . The "Independent Contract"
also reserves to the Union rights and privileges
which are severely restricted and circumscribed in
the "Association Agreement ." These factors negate
the provision of article 2 , section 2 , in the "Inde-
pendent Contract " which purports to make the in-
dividual signer thereof a part of a multiemployer
unit.
The strike addendum recites:
It is agreed that the following terms and condi-
tions will be observed from this date until a
collective bargaining agreement between
Northwest Floor Covering Association and the
Union is signed.
* *
3. If the direct cost package agreed to
between the Union and Northwest Floor
Covering Association is less than that provided
for in the collective bargaining agreement
between the Employer and the Union, then the
latter agreement shall be automatically
amended to incorporate such cost package.
On some date during the strike the Union added
the following words in manuscript to some copies
of the "Strike Addendum":
also Section 6 & Section 7 of Article 15 will
revert to N.W. Floor Covering Association lan-
guage.
The effect of this manuscript addition was to incor-
porate the "audit clause " of the Association Agree-
ment in the Independent Contract. In explanation
of this concession to the independents Anderson
testified:
We had made up a whole bunch of that inde-
pendent contract, so to speak , except the front
cover was not on there , but basically the same
wording , and this was the contract that we
were going for. Subsequently , we ran into a lot
of opposition to this clause about the auditing,
and we felt that it merited some attention, that
we were willing to change it and modify it and
rather than physically reprinting 500 of these
agreements , we had this thing made up, that
we would sign when we signed a contract with
the independent firm , whoever wanted to sign
a contract , we would sign one of these and
present to him along with the independent con-
tract.
C. Conduct of Respondent and Arguments of
Counsel
1. Respondent 's conduct at Miller's Interiors
The complaint alleges and the answer denied:
On or about March 15, 1969, Respondent, by
its business representative and agent Al Ander-
son, demanded that Miller 's withdraw from the
Association , cease using the Association as its
collective bargaining representative , and sign a
separate individual collective -bargaining agree-
ment with Respondent.
On the first day of the strike , Monday, March 3,
1969, Allen Anderson, a union business agent,
received a telephone call from Ken Furness, a
foreman employed by Miller 's Interiors of Lyn-
wood , Washington . Furness told Anderson that
"they wanted to get back to work there" and asked
Anderson to come to the shop. When Anderson ar-
rived , within 20 minutes, he was told that Mr. and
Mrs. Miller had left for Honolulu that morning. An-
derson told Furness and others present that the
only way to get the employees of Miller's Interiors
back to work was for Mr. Miller "to take this inde-
pendent contract , we will mail it to Mr. Miller in
Honolulu."
On Saturday, March 15, Anderson called on Wil-
liam Wallace Miller, president of Miller 's Interiors.
Miller testified:
Well, my main complaint on this strike was
the, what I considered the unfair audit clause,
and the overtime , Saturday. I had come to the
realization we were going to have to buy the
overtime package , the audit clause package, I
would not buy.
Q. Would you describe the audit clause to
us?
A. It is a little hard for me to describe in
detail . I felt it was a very unreasonable clause,
it gave them access to the records in our busi-
ness that they had really no right to examine,
namely , the time cards , tax reports , almost
everything that we have . And at the meetings
of Northwest Floor Covering Association, I
was perhaps the one that was the most
violently against this . And A] came in on Satur-
day morning and as near as I can recall his
words was that he understood that the audit
clause was the thing that was keeping me from
signing or the thing that I was against , and I ad-
mitted that, and he said would you consider
signing the contract , that we have prepared a
contract or would you consider signing a con-
tract which would eliminate these audit clauses
in relation to you . And the group of us stood
around and talked, and I asked if this was
going to be a revised contract that would in-
volve everybody in the Northwest Floor Cover-
ing Association, and he said, no, this was a
separate contract for you. Then the subject
came up of what would happen if I signed it at
this time and then the negotiations were ter-
minated and a new contract signed with
Northwest Floor Covering Association, what
would happen to this contract , and he said that
this contract would hold in relation to Miller's
Interiors, regardless of what the new contract
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would be. I had to refuse that .... I said that I
couldn't sign it unless it was for everybody. As
a member of Northwest Floor Covering As-
sociation, I felt I would be subject to suit, and I
won't sign it on, under any circumstances un-
less it was a contract for everybody.
Anderson testified:
Well Mr. Miller indicated that the clause that
he objected to very strenuously was the audit
clause, as we referred to it as. And I asked him,
I says, "Will you sign it without that clause?"
and Mr. Miller didn't answer directly on that.
Then I says, "Well, we can substitute, attach a
rider to this agreement, that will make the
clause binding. It will be the same one that will
be negotiated with Northwest Floor Covering
Association on that particular item, the audit-
ing clause. We would substitute the same
clause that Northwest Floor Covering Associa-
tion had agreed to have in their contract."
That was one point we had agreed to at that
time. That clause, no, it had not been ratified
or submitted to the memberships, between the
groups, they had agreed on this wording, and I
offered him to this rider with the agreement
that we would change that clause to the one
there in the Northwest agreement.
Q. And what did Mr. Miller say to you in
response to this offer, as I characterize it?
A. He told me he was bound by the
Northwest Floor Covering Association Agree-
ment and he could not sign the contract, so I
said, "That is fine." We left, and that is as far
as I recall, that is how it was left.
Q. Did you at any time demand that they
sign a separate indivisual collective bargaining
agreement with Local 1238 or face continued
strike of its employees?
A. Demand, no.
Anderson specifically denied making any demand
that Miller's Interiors withdraw from the Associa-
tion or cease using the Association as its collective-
bargaining representative.
Called as a rebuttal witness, Gary Wick, a
salesman, testified that Anderson called at the
premises about a week after the strike started and
in the absence of both Furness and the Millers
spoke to the superintendent, Leroy Jacobson.
Wick's testimony consisted entirely of general im-
pressions and is discredited insofar as it tends to
contradict the testimony of Anderson. Neither
Jacobson nor Furness was called as a witness. The
Testimony of Miller that he was assured by Ander-
son that the "Independent Contract" with the spe-
cial concessions which Anderson was authorized to
offer would "hold" regardless of the outcome of
the negotiations with Association is credited.
2. Respondent's conduct at Interior Supply
Company
The complaint alleges and the answer denies:
On or about March 3 and 15, 1969, and other
dates presently unknown during the month of
March, 1969, Respondent, by its business
representative and agent Raymond Squires and
by other agents presently unknown, demanded
that Interior withdraw from the Association,
cease using the Association as its bargaining
representative, and sign a separate and in-
dividual collective-bargaining Agreement with
Respondent or face a continued strike of its
employees and continued picketing of its Seat-
tle, Washington place of business.
The owner of Interior Supply, Gary Miller,
testified on direct examination:
A. I believe just prior to the strike, Mr.
Squires came out and gave us a copy of the
union's contract, the contract that they were
negotiating for, after the strike, I would say
within a week, he came out again . I don't have
total recall, but I do remember that he was out
three or four times.
I can't remember exactly what he said the
first time, but I know on one of the trips he
came out, we discussed the interim agreement
that the union was trying to get all the flooring
contractors to sign, I told him then that, how-
ever I was willing to discuss with him, but I did
tell him that we were a member of the Floor
Covering Association, he made some sug-
gestions in regards to some local dealers who
had signed the interim agreement, therefore
able to work their mechanics and possibly ap-
proach some of our builders. He also suggested
that some Tacoma dealers, the Tacoma local
was not on strike, also possibly could approach
some of our builders, and while we were out on
strike, this would be very disadvantageous to
us.
Upon being asked whether he could identify the
paper entitled "Strike Addendum," Miller testified:
A. Yes, I believe so, I am not positive of it, I
think that this was submitted to me by Mr.
Squires, I believe, the last time he was out
prior to the end of the strike. We also were
completely against the audit clause, as well as
the amount of money that was requested or
sought by the union. Mr. Squires brought, I be-
lieve, this out, and told us that they could omit
the audit clause if we would be willing to sign
the interim agreement, or at least revise it.
* * *
Q. Did this longhand writing [the words "al-
so section 6 & section 7 of article 15 will
CARPET, LINOLEUM & SOFT TILE LAYERS UNION, LOCAL 1238 45
revert to N . W. Floor Covering Association lan-
guage "] have anything to do with your conver-
sation with Mr . Squires?
A. Yes, this, I believe , if I am not mistaken,
is directly associated with the audit clause, as I
recall , here again , I am not positive , but as I re-
call, Mr . Squires wrote this in , or possibly he
left and came back with this written in at a
later date . Then I made a copy of, after refus-
ing to sign it I made a copy of this, and gave it
to Mr . Olsen.
Under cross -examination Miller testified that
during the year prior to the strike Squires had
visited the shop on several occasions and that on at
least one of these apprentices were discussed.
Miller also testified that he had made a trip to
Phoenix about the time that the strike started and
that picketing of his establishment began about 1
week after the strike started.
Squires testified that on February 21 or 22 Gary
Miller called him out to talk about an apprentice-
ship problem and that in the course of the discus-
sion Miller stated that he was dissatisfied with the
progress of negotiations and wanted Squires to see
him again after Miller returned from a projected
trip to Phoenix. During the second week of the
strike Squires made a second call bearing with him
the independent contract and the strike addendum.
When Miller asked what the other employers were
signing , Squires produced these documents. In
Squires' words:
He said he would look it over , and let me know
if he had any further thought , but at that time,
he was going to stick with the Association.
Squires denied that he had asked Miller to sign any
contract , denied asking Miller to withdraw from the
Association, and denied asking him to cease using
the Association as his bargaining representative.
Squires further testified that Miller's store and
warehouse were picketed from the second week of
the strike to its termination because the Union be-
lieved that Interior Supply had individuals perform-
ing work covered by the contract on various
jobsites during the course of the strike.
Both Gary Miller and Squires testified truthfully
to the best of their respective recollections . The un-
certainty of Miller 's testimony is reflected in the
words of the complaint , "by other agents presently
unknown ." His testimony that Squires presented a
contract to him before the strike is clouded by his
frank admission on cross-examination that he
discussed with Squires an apprenticeship problem,
corroborating Squires on this detail. His testimony
indicating that the "Strike Addendum" was
presented to him toward the end of the strike is ex-
tremely unlikely in view of the fact that the Union
was then picketing his establishment in protest of
the fact that he was operating with temporary
replacements . Insofar as any of the testimony of
Gary Miller tends to contradict the testimony of
Squires, I credit Squires.
3. Argument of the General Counsel
The General Counsel argues in substance:
Respondent approached Miller 's Interiors and In-
terior Supply Company, members of the Associa-
tion with solicitations to sign the Independent Con-
tract , which was separate and distinct from the As-
sociation Agreement for which the Association and
Respondent were then negotiating . By these solici-
tations Respondent attempted to force employer-
members of the Association to bypass their
designated collective -bargaining representative and
thereby violated Section 8 ( b)(3) and 8 ( b)(1)(B) of
the Act . Ice Cream , Frozen Custard Industry Em-
ployees, Drivers, Vendors and Allied Workers Union
Local 717, etc., 145 NLRB 865: United Slate,
Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp & Waterproof
Workers Association , Local No. 220, 177 NLRB
632; General Teamsters Local Union No. 324
(Cascade Employers Association , Inc.), 127
NLRB 488.
4. Argument of Respondent
Counsel for Respondent argues in substance:
(I) The complaint alleges that Respondent "de-
manded " that employers withdraw from the As-
sociation and sign a separate contract. Since there
is no evidence that Respondent "demanded"
anything , since no other unlawful act is alleged, and
since there was no motion to amend the complaint,
there is a complete failure of proof and the com-
plaint must be dismissed.
(2) Respondent 's willingness to enter into a
separate contract with individual employers cannot
be construed as "restraint" or "coercion ." The re-
jection by the Union of the contract recommended
by its negotiators created an " impasse " in bargain-
ing. During such impasse the Union was free to
negotiate separately with any employer . Westchester
County Executive Committee, 142 NLRB 126.
D. Concluding Findings
1. Anderson did suggest to William Miller that
he sign a separate contract with the Union and did
assure Miller that this separate contract would hold
regardless of what agreement might ultimately be
reached with the Association. In connection
therewith Anderson offered a guarantee as part of
the separate contract , or as an addendum thereto,
that Miller 's Interiors would not be bound by the
terms of the "audit clause " to which Miller ob-
jected . Anderson also implied, if he did not express-
ly state, that as soon as Miller signed this separate
agreement his employees would return to work.
2. Squire did suggest to Gary Miller that he sign
a separate contract with the Union on the express
or implied assurance that this would terminate the
strike at Interior Supply.
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
3. The strike coerced and restrained all em-
ployers against whom it was directed. Insofar as the
purpose of the strike was to cause independent em-
ployers to sign the "Independent Contract" it was
protected by Section 13 of the Act. Insofar as the
purpose of the strike was to cause the Association
to meet the economic demands of the Union, it was
protected by Section 13 of the Act.
4. The statements of Anderson and Squires
demonstrate that a second purpose of the strike was
to compel individual members of the Association to
sign separate individual contracts with the Union.
5. At no time was there any impasse in bargain-
ing. Any momentary impasse created by the
Union's rejection on Saturday of the contract
recommended by its negotiators was broken by the
strike which began on the following Monday.
N.L.R.B. v. United States Cold Storage Corporation,
203 F.2d 924, 928 (C.A. 5).
6. The Union's offer to call off the strike at Mil-
ler's Interiors and Interior Supply in exchange for
separate individual contracts is a "strong or
authoritative request" and fully satisfies this defini-
tion of the word "demand" in Webster's New
World Dictionary.
7. Cascade Employer Association (supra) and
Westchester County Executives Committee (supra)
contain square holdings that a union violates Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(B) and (3) of the Act if it strikes or
threatens to strike individual employer-members of
a multiemployer association to force them to enter
into individual contracts at a time (before impasse)
when the Union is obligated to bargain for an as-
sociationwide agreement.
The destructive effect on the multiemployer unit
is the same whether the offer of a separate contract
is made prior to and under threat of a strike or
whether the offer to call off the strike is condi-
tioned upon the signing of a separate contract. The
purpose and the effect of both actions is the frag-
mentation of the unit and conduct in derogation of
the Association's status as the representative of all
its members and all others who had given the As-
sociation written power of attorney.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in sec-
tion III, above, occurring in connection with the
operations described in section 1, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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.
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 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 In the event
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Northwest Floor Covering Association, Inc.,
and the employers represented by it in collective
bargaining with Respondent are employers engaged
in commerce and in business affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the
Act.
3. By dealing directly with Miller 's Interiors and
Interior Supply Company, and by exerting strike
pressure to force or require Miller 's Interiors and
Interior Supply Company to sign individual con-
tracts with the Respondent and to abandon bargain-
ing with the Respondent through Northwest Floor
Covering Association, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(l)(B) and ( 3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law and upon the entire record
in this proceeding, I recommend that Carpet,
Linoleum and Soft Tile Layers Union, Local 1238,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America,
AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain with Northwest Floor
Covering Association, Inc., by dealing directly with
individual employers represented by said Associa-
tion.
(b) Resorting to strike pressures or other coer-
cive conduct to force or require employers
represented by Northwest Floor Covering Associa-
tion, Inc., to sign separate individual contracts with
the Union.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices and meeting places copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." I Co-
pies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
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 Na-
tional 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 "
CARPET, LINOLEUM & SOFT TILE LAYERS UNION, LOCAL 1238
gional Director for Region 19, after being duly
signed by Respondent Union 's authorized represen-
tative , shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
^secutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, in-
cluding 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) Provide the Regional Director for Region 19
sufficient signed copies of the attached notice for
posting by all employers represented by Northwest
Floor Covering Association , Inc., these employers
willing , in places where notices to employees are
customarily posted . These copies of said notice,
which the Regional Director for Region 19 shall
provide, shall be returned forthwith to the Regional
Director for distribution to such employers after
being duly signed by a responsible officer of
Respondent.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19,
in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision , what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.2
3 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read " Notify the Regional Director for
Region 19, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
47
WE WILL NOT negotiate separately with , nor sign
any individual collective -bargaining agreement
with , any employer who is represented , for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Local 1238, by
Northwest Floor Covering Association, Inc.
CARPET , LINOLEUM AND
SOFT TILE LAYERS UNION,
LOCAL 1238, AFFILIATED
WITH THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
PAINTERS , DECORATORS
AND PAPERHANGERS OF
AMERICA , AFL-CIO
(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 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office , Republic Building , 10th Floor, 1511
Third Avenue , Seattle , Washington 98101,
Telephone 583-7473.