Cedar Valley Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1991

302 N.L.R.B. 823 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

823
302 NLRB No. 128
CEDAR VALLEY CORP.
1 The Respondent has requested oral argument. The request is denied as the
record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions
of the parties.
2 The Respondent implicitly has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the rel-
evant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Prod-
ucts, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have care-
fully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.
3 The judge did not address this argument. 4 The judge did not address these arguments.
Cedar Valley Corp. and Local Union No. 309, La-
borers International Union of North America,
AFL–CIO and Local Union No. 544, the Oper-
ative Plasterers and Cement Masons Inter-
national Association, AFL–CIO and Local 537,
International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL–CIO and Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Local 371, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, AFL–CIO. Cases 33–CA–8721, 33–
CA–8724, 33–CA–8735, and 33–CA–8821
April 30, 1991
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
On June 4, 1990, Administrative Law Judge Martin
J. Linsky issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Gen-
eral Counsel filed a brief in response and a brief in
support of the judge’s decision.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record1 in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
In contending that it was not obligated to honor con-
tracts with Operating Engineers Local 537 and Labor-
ers Local 309, the Respondent argues, inter alia, that
after expiration of their contracts on April 30, 1989, a
successor collective-bargaining agreement was not
signed by the Associated Contractors of Rock Island
and Operating Engineers Local 537 until on or after
June 5, 1989, and, that in the case of Laborers Local
309, no agreement was signed until June 13, 1989.
Thus, according to the Respondent, there was a ‘‘gap’’
between the April 30, 1989 expiration of the old con-
tracts and execution of the new contracts. The Re-
spondent argues that during this ‘‘gap’’ it repudiated
any relationship with Local 537 and Local 309.3
The record shows, however, that there was, in fact,
no ‘‘gap.’’ Laborers’ Local 309 Vice President Melvin
Downs testified without contradiction that the Associ-
ated Contractors of Rock Island reached a new agree-
ment with Laborers Local 309 prior to the April 30,
1989 expiration date of the old agreement, and that the
new agreement was in effect on May 1. Downs ex-
plained that the new agreement was not proofread and
printed until June 13. Jack Schadt of Operating Engi-
neers Local 537 testified without contradiction that
ratification of the new agreement between the Associa-
tion and the Operating Engineers Local 537 occurred
before the April 30 expiration date of the old contract.
He also testified that he mailed the previously agreed-
upon wage rates and fringe benefits to the heavy and
highway contractors on June 5.
The Respondent does not contend that, when the
parties agreed to new agreements prior to expiration of
the old Laborers’ and Operating Engineers’ contracts,
there were any unsatisfied conditions precedent to the
operation of the new contracts. Thus, both the Oper-
ating Engineers’ and Laborers’ new agreements were
effective on the April 30, 1989 expiration of the old
contracts. That these contracts may not have been for-
malized, printed, or mailed on May 1 does not make
them any less binding for the purpose of our finding
a contractual continuum in this case. We conclude that
there was no ‘‘gap’’ during which the Respondent
could repudiate either of these agreements.
Teamsters Local 371 had an 8(f) contract with the
Associated Contractors that was initially effective May
1, 1977, until April 30, 1980, and which provided for
automatic renewal annually unless termination or
modification was sought by written notice of either
party. Although the contract was modified after this
initial period, the parties continued their contractual
and bargaining relationship without interruption
through 1989. The Respondent contends, however,
that, on expiration of the April 30, 1989 contract,
Teamsters Local 371 did not enter into a new contract
with the Association until August 23, 1989, and that
the Respondent had repudiated its relationship with
this Union as early as August 1985.4 We disagree with
the Respondent’s contention that it lawfully repudiated
its relationship with Teamsters Local 371. If there
were such a repudiation in August 1985, it would have
occurred during the term of the then current-contract.
A party may not lawfully repudiate an 8(f) agreement
during its term. John Deklewa & Sons, 282 NLRB
1375 (1987), enfd. sub nom. Iron Workers Local 3 v.
NLRB, 843 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1988), cert. denied 109
S.Ct. 222 (1988). We note, also, that after Teamsters
Local 371 contacted the Respondent in the summer of
1989 seeking to enforce the contract, the Respondent
did not respond to it, let alone advise Local 371 that
it had previously repudiated the relationship. Thus, the
Respondent’s present repudiation argument appears to
be a makeweight and an afterthought.
824 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Cedar Valley Corp., Wa-
terloo, Iowa, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
MEMBER OVIATT, concurring.
I concur in the decision in this case with consider-
able reluctance. I agree that the Respondent failed
properly to exercise its rights to terminate its 8(f) bar-
gaining relationship. In addition, there certainly is no
basis in law or in fact for the Respondent to claim that
any union here was decertified as a result of an elec-
tion held in another jurisdiction (Illinois) when these
contracts applied in Davenport, Iowa.
I am concerned, however, about the fragmentation of
the multiemployer bargaining unit by 1989 and the ob-
ligation of the Respondent to continue thereafter to be
bound to the multiemployer contracts when only 2 of
the original 13 contractors remained members of the
Association. I believe that in a different context that
might well be a reason not to require an employer to
continue to honor its obligations under the multiem-
ployer agreements. But here, the Respondent did not
rely on this fragmentation when it refused to recognize
the Unions or to abide by the contracts. Thus, the
record reveals that when first confronted with the
Unions’ demands to apply the contracts, the Respond-
ent did not specify fragmentation of the multiemployer
unit as a reason for its refusal to apply the contracts.
In these circumstances, I agree with my colleagues that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5).
Judith T. Poltz, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Kevin J. Visser, Esq., Robert E. Konchar, Esq., and Mark J.
Rerzberer, Esq., of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for the Respond-
ent.
Melvin Downs, of Colona, Illinois, for Laborers 309.
Don Rainline, of Rock Island, Illinois, for Cement Mason
544.
Barry J. Levine, Esq., of St. Louis, Missouri, and Jack Shadt,
of Rock Island, Illinois, for Operating Engineers 537.
Denny West, of Rock Island, Illinois, for Teamsters 371.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARTIN J. INSKY, Administrative Law Judge. On June 6,
8, 21, and September 1, 1989, charges were filed against
Cedar Valley Corp. (Respondent), by Laborers 309, Cement
Masons 544, Operating Engineers 537, and Teamsters 371,
respectively.
Thereafter, on October 18, 1989, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, by the Regional Director for Region 33, ordered
that previously issued complaints in Cases 33–CA–8721, 33–
CA–8724, 33–CA–8735, and 33–CA–8821, be consolidated
for trial. The consolidated complaints allege that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act (the Act), when it refused to abide by or honor its
current collective-bargaining agreements with the four Charg-
ing Party Unions and when it unlawfully withdrew recogni-
tion from the four Charging Party Unions during the term of
the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreements. In all four in-
stances the collective-bargaining agreements in question were
8(f) agreements.
Respondent filed answers to the complaints in which it de-
nied that it violated the Act in any way.
A hearing was held before me in Rock Island, Illinois, on
January 18, 1990, and in Davenport, Iowa, on February 20
and 21, 1990.
I find that the General Counsel has proved its case and
will recommend an appropriate remedy.
Based on the entire record in this case, to include
posthearing briefs filed by the General Counsel and Re-
spondent, and based on my observation of the witnesses and
their demeanor, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURIDICTION
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein,
an Iowa corporation with an office and place of business lo-
cated in Waterloo, Iowa. It is in the business of concrete
paving contracting and has, inter alia, engaged in a paving
project which involves Interstate Route 280 in Scott County,
Iowa.
Respondent, during the past 12 months, which period is
representative of all times material, in the course and conduct
of its business operations, purchased and caused to be trans-
ferred and delivered to its various projects at points within
the State of Iowa, supplies and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 which were transported to the projects and locations
directly from States other than the State of Iowa.
Respondent admits and I find that it is, and has been at
all times material, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INOLVED
Laborers 309, Cement Masons 544, Operating Engineers
537, and Teamsters 371 are now, and have been at all times
material, labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
All sides agree that the principal case that all parties are
looking at for guidance is the Board’s decision in John
Deklewa & Sons, 282 NLRB 1375 (1987), enfd. sub nom.
Iron Workers Local 3 v. NLRB, 843 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1988),
cert. denied 107 S.Ct. 222 (1988). In Deklewa the Board ad-
dressed in great detail the entire subject of 8(f) contracts in
the construction industry.
Suffice it to say, at this juncture, that the Board held, in
part (at 1385) that ‘‘when parties enter into an 8(f) agree-
ment they will be required, by virtue of Section 8(a)(5) and
Section 8(b)(3), to comply with that agreement unless the
employees vote, in a Board-conducted election, to reject (de-
certify) or change their bargaining representative. Neither
825CEDAR VALLEY CORP.
employers nor unions who are party to 8(f) agreements will
be free unilaterally to repudiate such agreements.’’
Further, the Board held (at 1386) that ‘‘upon the contract’s
expiration, the signatory union will enjoy no majority pre-
sumption and either party may repudiate the 8(f) relation-
ship.’’
B. Factual Setting
In 1978 Respondent signed collective-bargaining agree-
ments with the four Charging Party Unions which are based
in the Quad Cities of Illinois and Iowa. Three of these agree-
ments—those of Teamsters 371, Operating Engineers 537,
and Laborers 309—provided that Respondent agreed to be
bound by successive labor agreements with the respective
unions negotiated by the Associated Contractors of Rock Is-
land, absent timely notice withdrawing such bargaining au-
thority. The fourth contract, with Cement Masons 544, pro-
vided for automatic renewal of the contract, absent timely
notice terminating the agreement.
Respondent is based in Waterloo, Iowa, and returned to
the Quad Cities area again for another project in 1981. At
that time it honored the collective-bargaining agreements
with the Quad Cities local unions representing Operating En-
gineers 537, Laborers 309, and Teamsters 371, and signed a
new agreement with Cement Masons 544 containing the
same automatic renewal language.
In 1985 Respondent performed its next project in the Quad
Cities area. When the Teamsters 371 business agent con-
tacted Respondent concerning this job, Rsepondent asserted
it had no collective-bargaining agreement with that union.
Teamsters 371 took no further action against Respondent at
that time. The Cement Masons 544 business agent visited the
jobsite; but because the job was already half done and be-
cause he had no workers available to refer to Respondent for
hiring, he took no action against Respondent. There is no
evidence that Respondent had any contact with Cement Ma-
sons 544, Operating Engineers 537 or Laborers 309 at that
time, and there is no evidence to show that either Operating
Engineers 537 or the Laborers 309 were aware of the project
at that time.
Respondent returned to the Quad Cities area for a fourth
project in 1989. The project was awarded to Respondent
shortly after final bidding closed on April 25, 1989. During
May and June, officers and business agents for Laborers 309,
Cement Masons 544 and Operating Engineers 537 called and
wrote to Respondent demanding that it comply with the
terms of the successive labor agreements to which Respond-
ent had agreed to be bound; or, in the case of Cement Ma-
sons 544, to the automatically renewed 1981 labor agree-
ment. During June and July, a Teamsters 371 business agent
called and visited Respondent’s jobsite and made the same
type of demand to an individual who had identified himself
as a supervisor employed by Respondent.
Respondent’s response to all the four unions was that by
virtue of certain 1983–1984 NLRB Region 18 representation
cases, entailing sister local unions based in Waterloo, Iowa,
and vicinity, Respondent had no collective-bargaining agree-
ments with the four Charging Party Unions.
Respondent, as noted above, is an Iowa corporation en-
gaged in the business of concrete paving and general con-
tracting in the construction of roads. Its offices are in Water-
loo, Iowa. At all times material herein, until his retirement
on December 15, 1989, Lawrence Bogue served as Respond-
ent’s executive vice president. For the last 2 years, Steven
Jackson served as Respondent’s president, in 1978 he served
as Respondent’s paving superintendent, and in 1981 he
served as Respondent’s vice president, paving superintendent
and project superintendent on a job in Scott County, Iowa.
At all times material herein, Larry Clark served as Respond-
ent’s treasurer.
Prior to 1983, Respondent was party to collective-bar-
gaining agreements with labor organizations based in Water-
loo or Des Moines, Iowa, and vicinity, representing employ-
ees in the crafts of operating engineers, laborers, cement ma-
sons, and teamsters. These labor organizations were: Oper-
ating Engineers 234, Cement Masons 818, Iowa Laborers
District Council, and Teamsters 844. These labor organiza-
tions represented Respondent’s employees employed at its
jobsites in Waterloo, Iowa, and vicinity. It is undisputed that
the geographic jurisdiction of these labor organizations and
the scope of their respective labor agreements did not extend
into Scott County, Iowa, or the Quad Cities.
During 1983–1984, each of the four Waterloo-Des Moines
based Labor Organizations was party to a representation case
before Region 18 of the Board, resulting either in decertifica-
tion, disclaimer, or withdrawal of the petition in which rep-
resentation was claimed. As a result Operating Engineers
234, Cement Masons 818, Iowa Laborers District Council,
and Teamsters 844 do not represent Respondent’s employees.
It is undisputed that the four Charging Party Unions were not
parties to, and had no notice of, the representation pro-
ceedings in the Board’s Region 18, which is located in Min-
neapolis, Minnesota.
Although based in Waterloo, Iowa, Respondent served as
general contractor and paving contractor for four highway
construction jobs in Scott County, Iowa. These jobs occurred
in 1978, 1981, 1985–1986, and 1989 and were referred to
during the hearing and in this decision as the Mt. Joy Road,
Division St. I, Division St. II, and I-280 jobs, respectively.
These are the only four jobs which Respondent performed
within tbe geographic jurisdiction of the Charging Party
Unions and within the geographic scope of their respective
collective-bargaining agreements.
The four Charging Parties are labor organizations based in
Rock Island, Illinois. Rock Island is one of four neighboring
cities on the Mississippi River which are collectively referred
to as the ‘‘Quad Cities,’’ consisting of Rock Island and Mo-
line in Illinois and Davenport and Bettendorf in Iowa. The
city of Davenport is located in Scott County, Iowa.
Jack Schadt is the current president and business manager
of Operating Engineers 537. Only the business manager has
authority to negotiate collective-bargaining agreements, al-
though business agents acting under his direction have au-
thority to sign such agreements. From 1975 until 1988,
Schadt served on the executive board of Operating Engineers
537. The executive board reviews the expenditures of money
and the policies of the local union. Schadt served also as an
apprentice instructor and coordinator for 3 years, and has
been a member of the union since 1961.
In 1978 Don Kenny, as business manager of Operating
Engineers 537, and George Foster Hutcheson, often called
‘‘Hutch,’’ served as a business agent. In 1980 George Foster
Hutcheson became business manager, and served in this ca-
pacity until his retirement in 1986 or 1987. Thereafter, he
826 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
moved to the southwest, and his brother, Jack Hutcheson,
served as president and business manager until he was de-
feated by Schadt in an election for this position.
Operating Engineers 537 business managers, business
agents, and officers, and George Foster Hutcheson in par-
ticular, never represented any other labor organization in bar-
gaining with employers. Specifically, Operating Engineers
537 never represented the other three Charging Party Unions
in this case.
For the last 2 years and at present, Dan Adams has been
and is, the current business representative of Laborers 309,
and Melvin ‘‘Butch’’ Downs has been, and is, the vice presi-
dent and field representative. None of the current officers
and agents of Laborers 309 have been in office for more than
2 years, but the office secretary has served for 11 years.
Don Hainline is the business agent for Cement Masons
544, and has served in this capacity for 20 years.
Denny West is, and has been, the vice president and busi-
ness agent for Teamsters 371 since 1985.
C. Mt. Joy Road Job (1978)
In 1978 Respondent served as the general contractor and
paving contractor for a project entailing paving Mount Joy
Road, an Iowa county road near the Davenport municipal air-
port. The job contract was signed on April 13, 1978, and
provided for 65 working days, to be completed by October
20, 1978. The contract price was $617,161.06.
On or about June 26, 1978, Lawrence Bogue, on behalf
of Respondent, signed a collective-bargaining agreement with
Operating Engineers 537. The agreement is captioned
‘‘Heavy and Highway Agreement,’’ and recites at the outset
that it is an agreement between the ‘‘ASSOCIATED CON-
TRACTORS with headquarters in Rock Island, Illinois,
and/or by individual signers who are engaged in the con-
struction industry as described herein, hereinafter referred to
as the Contractor, and the INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS, Local 537, hereinafter referred
to as the Union.’’
The agreement concludes, just above Bogue’s signature,
with the following language, which is the basis for the Gen-
eral Counsel and Charging Party position that Respondent is
bound to successive collective-bargaining agreements nego-
tiated between the Associated Contractors of Rock Island and
Operating Engineers 537:
The undersigned employer hereby becomes a signa-
tory employer to this agreement between the ASSOCI-
ATED CONTRACTORS and the INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 537.
The undersigned employer signatory hereto who is
not a member of the said Association agrees to be
bound by any amendments, extensions or changes in
this Agreement agreed to between the Union and the
Association, and further agree to be bound by the terms
and conditions of all subsequent contracts negotiated
between the Union and the Association unless ninety
(90) days prior to the expiration of this or any subse-
quent agreement said non-member employer notifies the
Union in writing that it revokes such authorization. Fur-
ther, said non-member employer agrees that notice
served by the Union upon said Association and Medi-
ation Services for re-opening, termination or com-
mencement of negotiations shall constitute notice upon
and covering the non-member employer signatory here-
to.
At no time did Respondent serve Operating Engineers 537
with notice of termination of the 1978 agreement or with no-
tice of withdrawal of the delegation of bargaining authority
set forth above. Operating Engineers 537 received the Asso-
ciated Contractors of Rock Island’s negotiated successive
collective-bargaining agreements thereafter. The most recent
of these is effective by its terms from May 1, 1989, through
April 30, 1992.
The geographic jurisdiction of the agreement includes
Scott County, Iowa (except for certain river work not en-
tailed in the present case), and does not overlap with the ge-
ographic jurisdiction of the Operating Engineers sister local
union, i.e., Operating Engineers 234, based in Waterloo,
Iowa.
On or about June 26, 1978, Bogue signed, on behalf of
Respondent, a collective-bargaining agreement with Laborers
309. The Laborers 309 collective-bargaining agreement is
captioned ‘‘Agreement Between Laborers’ International
Union of North America, Local Union No. 309 Affiliated
with AFL–CIO and Associated Contractors Covering Heavy
& Highway Construction Work in Rock Island and Mercer
Counties in Illinois and Scott County, Iowa.’’
On the last page of the Laborers 309 collective-bargaining
agreement, just above Lawrence Bogue’s signature, the fol-
lowing clause appears, which is the basis for the General
Counsel’s and Union’s assertion that Respondent is bound to
successive contracts negotiated between the Associated Con-
tractors of Rock Island and Laborers 309:
The undersigned Employer hereby becomes a signa-
tory Employer to this Agreement between the Associ-
ated Contractors and the Laborers’ International Union
of North America, Local Union No. 309, AFL–CIO.
The undersigned Employer signatory hereto who is
not a member of the said Association agrees to be
bound by any amendments, extensions or changes in
this Agreement, and further agree to be bound by the
terms and conditions of all subsequent contracts nego-
tiated between the Union and the Association unless
ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of this or any
subsequent Agreement said nonmember Employer noti-
fies the Union in writing that it revokes such authoriza-
tion. Further, said nonmember Employer agrees that no-
tice server by the Union upon said Association and
Meditation Services for re-opening, termination or
comencement of negotiations shall constitute notice
upon and covering the nonmember Employer signatory
hereto.
It is undisputed that Respondent never served Laborers
309 with notice of termination of the collective-bargaining
agreement or with withdrawal of the bargaining authority
delegated to the Associated Contrators of Rock Island. The
Associated Contractors of Rock Island and Laborers 309 ne-
gotiated successive collective-bargaining agreements, the
most recent of which is effective by its terms from May 1,
1989, to April 30, 1992.
On July 20, 1978, Stephen Jackson signed, on behalf of
Respondent, a collective-bargaining agreement with Cement
827CEDAR VALLEY CORP.
Masons 544. Article XVII, Duration and Termination, of that
agreement provides:
This contract shall be in effect from May 1, 1978 to
April 30, 1981 and shall automatically renew itself
thereafter from year to year unless either party hereto
gives the other party no less than sixty (60) days notice
by registered mail prior to the expiration date express-
ing their desire to modify, amend or terminate this con-
tract.
Just above Jackson’s signature, the agreement provides:
The undersigned contractor, or association of contrac-
tors, does hereby become an additional signatory em-
ployer party to this Agreement.
On or about July 5, 1978, Larry Clark, Respondent’s treas-
urer, signed a participation agreement providing that Re-
spondent would make payments into the health and welfare
fund created by a trust agreement between the Illinois Con-
ference of Teamsters and various employer associations. The
participation agreement recited that Respondent had entered
into a collective-bargaining agreement with Teamsters 371.
On or about July 17, 1978, Clark signed a similar participa-
tion agreement pertaining to the Teamsters 371 Pension Fund
maintained by the Central States Southeast and Southwest
Pension Fund. This agreement was signed also by a rep-
resentative of Teamsters 371. On August 25, 1978, Clark
signed the actual collective-bargaining agreement to which
these participation agreements referred.
The collective-bargaining agreement which Respondent
signed with Teamsters 371 is captioned ‘‘Agreement Be-
tween Teamsters Union Local No. 371 and Associated Con-
tractors of Rock Island Covering Heavy Construction in
Rock Island and Mercer County in Illinois and Scott County
in Iowa.’’ The text of this agreement is the same as that ne-
gotiated between the Associated Contractors of Illinois and
the Illinois Conference of Teamsters, except that the contract
signed by Respondent specifically includes Scott County,
Iowa, and certain Illinois counties.
By virtue of certain language in the Teamsters 371 con-
tract which Respondent signed in 1978, Respondent bound
itself to comply with future contracts negotiated by the Asso-
ciated Contractors of Rock Island. The language in question
is found at the recognition clause, and is supplemented by
recitations in the preamble. The preamble recites that the par-
ties recognize that collective bargaining by and between local
unions and individual contractors could create ‘‘numerous
separate labor agreement with differing standards of wages,
hours and working conditions,’’ and ‘‘in turn would prevent
contractors from competing for available work on the basis
of like labor costs and would create inequities and inequal-
ities among employees doing the same type of work in the
same area.’’ The preamble further recites that:
In order to avoid such undesirable circumstances and
achieve the stabilization of wage rates and working
conditions . . . the parties desire and intend this to be
a multi-employer, multi-union negotiated agreement es-
tablished for the classes of employees involved . . . re-
gardless of the contractor for whom they work or the
Local Union which represents them.
The recognition clause of the same contract provides that
the conference of local unions recognizes the multiemployer
association as the bargaining agent for all employers who
have so authorized the association, and continues:
Individual Employers who have not so authorized the
Association shall, by becoming party to this agreernent
also become part of said multi-employer bargaining
unit, and withdrawal therefrom may be accomplished
only by written notice to the Conference, at least sixty
(60), but no more than ninety (90) days prior to the
date of expiration of this agreement or, of any renewal
period hereof. Notice to the Association, wherever no-
tice is required herein, shall constitute notice to each
and all members of the multi-employer bargaining unit.
Even if the above language did not bind Respondent to
successive contracts between the Associated Contractors of
Rock Island and Teamsters 371, Respondent is bound never-
theless by the automatic renewal language of the Teamsters
371 contract which it signed in 1978:
This Agreement shall become effective as of the 1st
day of May 1977, and shall remain in full force and ef-
fect until the 30th day of April 1980, and each year
thereafter, unless written notice of termination or de-
sired modification is given at least sixty (60) days, but
no more than ninety (90) days prior to the expiration
date by either of the parties hereto.
At no time did Respondent serve Teamsters 371 with no-
tice of withdrawal from the multiemployer bargaining unit,
termination of the delegation of bargaining authority implicit
in its participation in the multiemployer bargaining unit, or
termination of the 1978 collective-bargaining agreement.
Respondent’s 1978 job paving Mount Joy Road was not
covered by the Davis-Bacon Act. Respondent admitted, and
the record shows, that Respondent paid wages and health and
welfare benefit contributions in accordance with its obliga-
tions under the collective-bargaining agreements with the
Charging Parties.
Respondent maintained no payroll record or peronnel
records which would show its method of obtaining labor for
the 1978 job. The record indicates, however, that Respondent
couplied with the collective-bargaining agreements with the
Charging Parties. First, Respondent had no record of griev-
ances filed alleging failure to comply with the Charging Par-
ties’ labor agreements. The Operating Engineers 537 agree-
ment provides for exclusive referral, and its members would
be subject to intraunion discipline if they were to accept em-
ployment from a signatory contractor without going through
the referral procedure. Further, health and welfare records in-
dicate that Respondent hired three individuals who were
members of Operating Engineers 537, and none were dis-
ciplined for such misconduct. Moreover, although Respond-
ent employed five individuals in this craft who apparently
were from its Waterloo operation, Respondent made health
and welfare and pension contributions on behalf of these in-
dividuals as well to the Operating Engineers 537 funds, with
arrangements for the subsequent transfer of such funds to the
corresponding Waterloo local funds, in accordance with nor-
mal procedures and the Operating Engineers 537 contract.
828 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent used the Laborers 309 referral hall, for the re-
ferral slips are in evidence, along with the health and welfare
records showing payments on behalf of employees in this
craft. Respondent employed its laborers workforce through
referral by Laborers 309. Employees in this craft who were
not referred by Laborers 309 may have been ‘‘key men’’
permitted by the contract, or workers in excess of those
which Laborers 309 was able to supply. Nevertheless, Re-
spondent paid health and welfare contributions on behalf of
all laborer employees to the Laborers 309 fund, as required
by the Laborers 309 contract.
Cement Masons 544 had no records available of 1978 re-
ferrals or fund contributions because of a fire in its offices
which destroyed such records. Nevertheless, Respondent ad-
mitted that it substantially complied with the requirements of
its 1978 collective-bargaining agreement with Cement Ma-
sons 544.
Records maintained by Teamsters 371 indicate that Re-
spondent made pension payments to the Central States Pen-
sion Fund in accordance with the requirements of the Team-
sters 371 contract, and that Respondent employed at least
one driver who was a member of Teamsters 371. The Team-
sters 371 contract requires hiring exclusively by referral by
the Union, but allows contractors to bring in 20 percent of
its workforce from other areas.
D. Division St. I Job (1981)
Respondent returned to the Quad Cities in 1981 to serve
as general contractor and paving contractor for a project en-
tailing paving Division Street in Davenport. The job entailed
an estimate of 80 working days, with 113.5 actual working
days during 1981. The job was to commence on approxi-
mately April 1, 1931, concluded on or about December 8,
1981, and entailed a contract price of $1,351,560.59.
Bogue and Jackson represented Respondent at a prejob
conference which occurred at the Ramada Inn in the Quad
Cities. Representatives of tbe various craft unions were
present, including Don Hainline for Cement Masons 544. On
July 21, 1981, Jackson signed the Cement Masons 544 then-
current collective-bargaining agreement. This collective-bar-
gaining agreement contained the same automatic renewal lan-
guage as the Cement Masons 544 collective-bargaining
agreement which Respondent had signed in 1978.
Respondent did not sign any further agreements with the
other Charging Parties. Nevertheless, Respondent again com-
plied with the terms of the agreements which it had signed
in 1978, as updated by successor agreements. Specifically,
Respondent used the Operating Engineers 537 referral hall to
obtain part of its workforce in this craft, and paid health and
welfare contributions on behalf of all its employees in this
craft to the Operating Engineers 537 trust funds, with appro-
priate subsequent transfers of funds to the home local union
trust funds on behalf of those Waterloo employees who had
authorized such transfers.
Similarly, Respondent made payments to the Laborers 309
health and welfare fund on behalf of all its employees in this
craft. Several of its laborers were in fact members of Labor-
ers 309. In light of the exclusive hiring hall procedures under
the Laborers 309 collective-bargaining agreement and the
fact that a member of Respondent’s laborers’ workforce con-
sisted of members of Laborers 309 in good standing, it is a
reasonable inference that these workers were referred in ac-
cordance with the referral and hiring provisions of the con-
tract. Referral records for 1981 had existed, but were lost
prior to the instant litigation.
Respondent hired two-thirds of its cement masons through
referral by Cement Masons 544, and paid health and welfare
contributions on behalf of all its employees in this craft to
the Cement Masons 544 trust fund. Both the referral records
and benefit payment records are in evidence. Insofar as Ce-
ment Masons 544 referred workers before Respondent signed
the 1981 labor agreement, such request for employees and
referrals occurred pursuant to the 1978 labor agreement,
which had automatically renewed and was in effect until
superceded by Respondent’s 1981 agreement.
Finally, Respondent paid health and welfare contributions
on behalf of its drivers to the Teamsters 371 trust fund, and
hired at least some of its drivers through referral by Team-
sters 371, in accordance with Teamsters 371’s contractual
hiring and referral procedure.
In 1982, long after the 1981 job was completed, both La-
borers 309 and Operating Engineers 537 continued to apprise
Respondent of modifications of and successor agreements to
their respective area labor agreements, and Respondent main-
tained this correspondence in its files to the date of the hear-
ing. Cement Masons 544 and Teamsters 371 provided similar
information during 1981, which Respondent again retained to
the present.
E. Division St. II Job (1985)
In 1985 Respondent served as general contractor and pav-
ing contractor for a job referred to in this litigation as the
Division Street II job. The job, covered by the Davis-Bacon
Act, entailed paving 2.37 miles of roadway, for contract
price of $711,633.83. The job began with excavation
perfored by a subcontractor, Foley, who commenced work
during the week ending August 10, 1985, and who worked
continuously until the week ending November 23, 1985.
Foley resumed and concluded the job during April 1986.
Foley is a well-known excavation contractor in the Quad Cit-
ies, and signatory to collective-bargaining agreements with
each of the Charging Parties. Respondent performed actual
paving on this project only during a 6-week period in Octo-
ber and November 1985, when it employed employees in all
four of the crafts represented by the Charging Parties. The
entire project entailed a total of approximately 7,989.5 hours,
of which Respondent’s employees performed approximately
52.7 percent. The remaining hours were performed by other
contractors, principally Foley.
When Respondent performed this project, it gave no notice
to any of the four Charging Parties, and had no contact what-
soever with Operating Engineers 537 or Laborers 309.
Don Hainline, president of Cement Masons 544, visited
the jobsite in 1985. He had heard from a member that a job
was ongoing at that time, and he went to check the job pur-
suant to the member’s request. Hainline found that Respond-
ent was indeed performing work entailing the cement masons
craft. Because the job was already ‘‘half done,’’ the remain-
ing work did not entail a substantial job and because
Hainline had no employees available to refer to Respondent
for employment, he took no action against Respondent. This
inaction by Cement Masons 544 does not constitute a waiver
of its contract rights since the Union had good reasons for
829CEDAR VALLEY CORP.
its inaction and the waiver, if any, is not clear and unmistak-
able.
Teamsters 371 business agent, Denny West, took office in
1985. West testified that he learned that Respondent was per-
forming the Division Street II job from Don Hainline. West
had a conversation with Lawrence Bogue on or about Octo-
ber 11, 1985. On that date, West wrote Respondent a letter
stating:
Dear Sir:
Per our conversation on October 11, 1985 I am asking
for what prove [sic] you have that you are not signed
to a contract. Please submit all your prove [sic] to me
or you are in violation of our standards.
Very truly yours,
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 371
Denny West
Vice President and Business Representative
Respondent did not respond to this letter. West testified that
he visited the jobsite sometime after he wrote this letter, and
found only Foley’s crew at work. He, therefore, took no fur-
ther action against Respondent. I specifically credit the testi-
mony of Hainline and West. Their demeanor was such that
I found them to be honest witnesses.
A waiver of rights by a union must be clear and unmistak-
able. Metropolitan Edion Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693 (1983).
There was no clear and unmistakable waiver in this case by
the action of Teamsters 371 and Cement Masons 544 regard-
ing the 1985 Division Street II job.
F. I-280 Job (1989)
On or about April 25, 1989, the Iowa Department of
Transportation closed the final bidding on a project to pave
a 7.8-mile stretch of Interstate 280 within Scott County,
Iowa. Respondent was the successful bidder. Respondent and
the Iowa Department of Transportation signed the job con-
tract on May 19, 1989. The project entailed a contract price
of $4,190,393.72. In the performance of this project, Re-
spondent employed employees in all four of the crafts rep-
resented by the Charging Parties.
Jack Schadt of Operating Engineers 537 learned that Re-
spondent as awarded the contract from the Dodge Reports,
which is a service which lists contracts. He called Respond-
ent and left messages with Respondent’s office secretary, but
he received no responses to these inquiries. On or about June
5, 1989, he called again, and this time he reached Steve
Jackson. Schadt told Jackson that his union had a contract
with Respondent, and asked to meet to discuss arrangements
for the job. Jackson told Schadt that he did not think Re-
spondent had a contract with the Union, that Respondent had
repudiated or ‘‘backed out of’’ the contract in 1983. Schadt
offered to send Respondent a copy of the signature page of
the contract which Respondent signed in 1978.
By letter dated June 7, 1989, Jackson responded on behalf
of Respondent, asserting again that no contract existed. Jack-
son enclosed a copy of a letter dated September 1983 which
Respondent had sent to Des Moines-based Operating Engi-
neers 234. In the 1983 letter, Respondent had asserted it
could not meet with Operating Engineers 234 in light of Op-
erating Engineer 234’s withdrawal of a representation peti-
tion it had filed with the Board’s Region 18. Jackson stated,
in his cover letter to Schadt:
As you can see from the facts and events detailed in
this letter, the International Union of Operating Engi-
neers does not represent Cedar Valley Corp. Employ-
ees.
In accordance with the wishes of our employees, we
have not and will not recognize any labor union as a
collective bargaining representative of our employees
absent a valid election certifying the same.
Schadt and Jackson exchanged further letters reiterating their
respective positions.
Laborers 309 learned that Respondent was awarded the
1989 I-280 job also through the Dodge Reports. By certified
letter dated May 8, 1989, Laborers 309 business manager,
Dan Adams, requested a prejob conference pursuant to its
contract with Respondent. Steve Jackson responded on behalf
of Respondent, denying the existence of a contract. Laborers
309 sent Respondent a copy of the contract signed by Re-
spondent in 1978. Jackson and Adams exchanged further cor-
respondence, both directly and through their attorneys, until
June 19, 1989. Neither party changed position.
Respondent had only one argument in response to the La-
borers 309 claim of the existence of a contract: that in 1984
the Iowa Laborers District Council lost a representation elec-
tion in a proceeding before the Board’s Region 18. Laborers
309 is not a member of the Iowa Laborers District Council.
Respondent sent Laborers 309 a copy of the certification of
results of the election. Jackson stated in one letter to Labor-
ers 309, ‘‘it remains our position that no labor organization
represents our employees. Specifically, the lapse of more
than 10 years together with an intervening decertification
election is, we believe, strong evidence in support of that po-
sition.’’
By certified letter to Respondent dated May 8, 1989, Don
Hainline requested a prejob conference on behalf of Cement
Masons 544. Jackson replied by letter, denying existence of
a collective-bargaining agreement. The parties reiterated their
positions in further correspondence between May 8 and June
19, with neither party changing position. Hainline sent Re-
spondent a copy of the collective-bargaining agreement
which Respondent had signed in 1981.
Respondent raised only one argument in response to the
Cement Masons 544’s claim of the existence of a contract:
that in 1984 Cement Masons 544’s sister local, Cement Ma-
sons 818, based in Iowa, had lost a representation election
in proceedings on a decertification petition before the
Board’s Region 18. Jackson sent Hainline a copy of the cer-
tification of results of this election and asserted, ‘‘it remains
our position that no labor organization represents our em-
ployees. Specifically, the lapse of more than seven years to-
gether with an intervening decertification election is, we be-
lieve, strong evidence in support of that position.’’
Denny West of Teamsters 371 learned about Respondent’s
project from Laborers 309. He called Respondent’s offices,
and visited the jobsite three times in the spring and summer
of 1989. He received no response to his telephone messages.
On his first two visits, he knocked on the door of the jobsite
trailer; although he could hear voices inside, no one opened
the door, and West left. On West’s third visit, which oc-
830 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
curred in July, he simply entered the trailer without knock-
ing. A man in the trailer said he was a supervisor for Re-
spondent. West introduced himself, showed the supervisor
the contract which Respondent had signed and the collective-
bargaining agreement then in effect with the Associated Con-
tractors of Rock Island, and a copy of his business card. The
supervisor said he would send these documents to Respond-
ent’s attorney. Respondent did not reply to Teamsters 371.
Respondent completed all work on this I-280 job prior to
the opening of the hearing in this case.
G. Legal Analysis
Respondent raises a number of defenses. It alleges that it
should not be bound by the contracts with the four Charging
Party Unions because when it signed the contracts in 1978
and 1981 it did so on a ‘‘single project’’ basis only, i.e., it
signed the contracts and agreed to be bound but only for tbe
duration of the job then in progress, namely, the Mount Joy
job and the Division Street I job. I do not agree. I do not
credit the testimony of either Lawrence Bogue or Stephen
Jackson. Neither man was credible on this point. If these
were going to be ‘‘single project’’ agreements then that
would have been written into the contract or noted in some
way. It was not. I credit the testimony of the witnesses for
the General Counsel who credibly testified that Respondent
signed the contracts and did not in any way indicate that they
considered themselves bound to the contract only for the du-
ration of the project then under way. The Charging Party
Unions even presented samples of ‘‘single project’’ contracts
they have entered into and all of those contracts are clear of
their face that the contracts are for a single project or a lim-
ited duration of time.
Respondent also claims that because its employees in Iowa
effectively removed sister locals of the four Charging Party
Unions as their representatives for purposes of collective bar-
gaining that, therefore, the four Charging Party Unions were
likewise decertified and Respondent’s contractual obligations
to those four Charging Party Unions terminated. The four
Charging Party Unions were not parties or even notified
about the Region 18 litigation regarding their sister locals. I
reject this defense. A decertification of union X does not de-
certify union Y. If grounds exist to repudiate a contract with
union A or grounds exist to justify a refusal to bargain with
union A it does not follow that an employer may repudiate
a contract with union B or refuse to bargain with union B.
The Board has addressed the question of whether an 8(f)
employer is bound, by the terms of his original contract, to
successor agreements or to the automatic renewal of the
original contract. The Board has uniformly held that employ-
ers are bound to such successor contracts and automatically
renewed agreements. When, for example, an employer signs
a supplemental agreeent whereby he consents to be bound to
the area association agreement and to successor association
agreements, the Board has stated that the employer is bound
to successor agreements until he serves timely notice to ter-
minate the agreement and the delegation of bargaining au-
thority. Twin City Garage Door Co., 297 NLRB 119 fn. 2
(1989); W. B. Skinner, Inc., 283 NLRB 989 (1987). Simi-
larly, even if the supplemental agreement contains no auto-
matic renewal language, but the master agreement has such
a provision, the Board has stated that the employer is thereby
bound to successive master agreements until he serves timely
notice of contract termination. Garman Construction, 287
NLRB 88 (1987).
Further, the Board has stated that an employer’s mere
withdrawal of bargaining authority from the employer asso-
ciation does not terminate the obligation to abide by the cur-
rent collective-bargaining agreement, and does not cancel the
automatic renewal language of the contract. Electrical Work-
ers IBEW Local 532 (Brink Construction), 291 NLRB 437
(1988), Carthage Sheet Metal Co., 286 NLRB 1249 (1987).
When the 8(f) agreement expires and the employer has
served timely notice of contract termination, nevertheless, the
Board has held the designation of bargaining authority con-
tinues. That is, the Board has held that an employer is bound
to successive agreements negotiated by the association until
the employer withdraws bargaining authority from the asso-
ciation in a timely manner. Reliable Electric Co., 286 NLRB
834 (1987); Kephart Plumbing, 285 NLRB 612 (1987); City
Electric, 288 NLRB 443 (1988); Riley Electric, 290 NLRB
374 (1988).
The effect of the decisions cited above is clear. Here, Re-
spondent signed collective-bargaining agreements with Oper-
ating Engineers 537 and with Laborers 309, and each con-
tract contained an express commitment to abide by the terms
of successor association agreements. Respondent never termi-
nated this delegation of bargaining rights in the contractually
prescribed manner. Under the cases cited above, Respond-
ent’s obligation to be bound by successor agreements contin-
ued to the present.
Although the language of delegation of bargaining rights
in the Teamsters 371 contract is not as clear as that in Oper-
ating Engineers 537 and Laborers 309 agreements, neverthe-
less the delegation is the logical consequence of Respond-
ent’s contractual commitment to be part of the multiemployer
bargaining unit. Accordingly, Respondent should be held re-
sponsible to abide by the successor contracts negotiated by
Teamsters 371 and the Associated Contractors of Rock Is-
land, as these are applicable to the multiemployer bargaining
unit referred to in the contract which Respondent signed. Al-
ternatively, Respondent is bound by the automatic renewal
language set forth in Teamsters 371’s collective-bargaining
agreement which it signed in 1978.
Similarly, Respondent is bound by the automatic renewal
language of its collective-bargaining agreement with Cement
Masons 544. The Board has held that where an employer has
not signed a document delegating bargaining authority to an
association but has signed an association collective-bar-
gaining agreement with a union providing for automatic re-
newal, the employer continued to be bound by the collective-
bargaining agreement until it serves timely notice of termi-
nation of the agreement. The Board has stated that in such
circumstances, the union’s notice of termination of the con-
tract, served on the association, does not terminate the con-
tract as to the employer who has not delegated bargaining
rights to the association. C.E.K. Industrial Mechanical Con-
tractors, 295 NLRB 635 (1989).
Needless to say the fact that the number of employers who
are members of the Association rises or falls or the fact that
many members of the Association withhold bargaining au-
thority from the Association is irrelevant.
In short, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act by repudiating its collective-bargaining agreements
with the four Charging Party Unions during the term of the
831CEDAR VALLEY CORP.
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as
provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objec-
tions to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals,
the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
4 General Counsel’s motion to correct transcript is granted.
contracts and by withdrawing recognition from the four
Charging Party Unions.
The contracts now in effect with Laborers 309 (G.C. Exh.
5), Operating Engineers 537 (G.C. Exh. 7), and Teamsters
371 (G.C. Exh. 10) terminate on April 30, 1992. The year-
to-year roll-over contract with Cement Masons 544 termi-
nates April 30, 1991. If the Respondent wants to repudiate
these 8(f) contracts it is free to do so. But it must do so in
the manner prescribed in the contracts.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
with the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Unions, Laborers 309, Operating Engineers 537,
Cement Masons 544, and Teamsters 371 are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By repudiating its current collective-bargaining agree-
ments with the four Charging Party Unions and withdrawing
recognition from those Unions prior to the expiration of the
collective-bargaining agreement, the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
4. The unfair labor practices affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of tbe Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I will recommended that it be ordered
to cease and desist and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Respondent
will be ordered to make whole, as prescribed in Ogle Protec-
tion Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), any employees for
losses they may have suffered as a result of the Respondent’s
failure to adhere to the contract, with interest, as computed
in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, Cedar Valley Corp., Waterloo, Iowa, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Withdrawing recognition during the term of a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement from the four Charging Party
Unions, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representatives
of the Respondent’s employees covered by the agreement.
(b) Refusing to adhere to its current collective-bargaining
agreements with the four Charging Party Unions.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make whole the above-described employees, in the
manner set forth in the remedy, for any losses they may have
suffered as a result of the Respondent’s failure to adhere to
its contracts.
(b) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its Waterloo, Iowa copies of the attached notice
marked ‘‘Appendices I, II, III, and IV.’’3 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
33, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized rep-
resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient cop-
ies of the attached notices for posting by the four Charging
Party Unions, if willing, in conspicuous places where notices
to employees and members are customarily posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.4
APPENDIX I
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States of Government
WE WILL NOT, during the term of a collective-bargaining
agreement, repudiate that agreement and/or withdraw rec-
ognition from Local Union No. 309, Laborers International
Union of North America, AFL–CIO as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of our employees covered by
that agreement.
WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain collectively
and in good faith concerning application of the current agree-
ment with Local Union No. 309, Laborers International
Union of North America, AFL–CIO, as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the bargaining
unit described in the effective bargaining agreement de-
scribed above during the term of that agreement.
WE WILL honor and follow the terms of the above-de-
scribed agreement with Local Union No. 309, Laborers Inter-
national Union of North America, AFL–CIO, which expires
on April 30, 1992, whenever we are engaged in projects
which fall within its terms or scope.
WE WILL make employees whole for any losses they may
have suffered as a result of our failure to adhere to the col-
lective-bargaining agreement as described above as it per-
tains to the Interstate 280, Scott County project.
CEDAR VALLEY CORP.
832 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX II
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States of Government
WE WILL NOT, during the term of a collective-bargaining
agreement, repudiate that agreement and/or withdraw rec-
ognition from Local Union No. 544, the Operative Plasterers
and Cement Masons International Association, AFL–CIO as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our em-
ployees covered by that agreement.
WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain collectively
and in good faith concerning application of the current agree-
ment with Local Union No. 544, the Operative Plasterers and
Cement Masons International Association, AFL–CIO as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit described in the effective bargaining agree-
ment described above during the term of that agreement.
WE WILL honor and follow the terms of the above-de-
scribed agreement with Local Union No. 544, the Operative
Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association,
AFL–CIO, which expires on April 30, 1991, whenever we
are engaged in projects which fall within its terms or scope.
WE WILL make employees whole for any losses they may
have suffered as a result of our failure to adhere to the col-
lective-bargaining agreement as described above as it per-
tains to the Interstate 280, Scott County project.
CEDAR VALLEY CORP.
APPENDIX III
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States of Government
WE WILL NOT, during the term of a collective-bargaining
agreement, repudiate that agreement and/or withdraw rec-
ognition from Local Union No. 537, International Union of
Operating Engineers, AFL–CIO as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees covered by that
agreement.
WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain collectively
and in good faith concerning application of the current agree-
ment with Local Union No. 537, International Union of Op-
erating Engineers, AFL–CIO as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the bargaining unit described
in the effective bargaining agreement described above during
the term of that agreement.
WE WILL honor and follow the terms of the above-de-
scribed agreement with Local Union No. 537, International
Union of Operating Engineers, America, AFL–CIO, which
expires on April 30, 1992, whenever we are engaged in
projects which fall within its terms or scope.
WE WILL make employees whole for any losses they may
have suffered as a result of our failure to adhere to the col-
lective-bargaining agreement as described above as it per-
tains to the Interstate 280, Scott County project.
CEDAR VALLEY CORP.
APPENDIX IV
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States of Government
WE WILL NOT, during the term of a collective-bargaining
agreement, repudiate that agreement and/or withdraw rec-
ognition from Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers Local 371, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, AFL–CIO as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of our employees covered by that agreement.
WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain collectively
and in good faith concerning application of the current agree-
ment with Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers Local 371, affiliated with the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, AFL–CIO as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the bargaining unit described in the
effective bargaining agreement described above during the
term of that agreement.
WE WILL honor and follow the terms of the above-de-
scribed agreement with Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers Local 371, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, AFL–CIO, which expires on April 30,
1992, whenever we are engaged in projects which fall within
its terms or scope.
WE WILL make employees whole for any losses they may
have suffered as a result of our failure to adhere to the col-
lective-bargaining agreement as described above as it per-
tains to the Interstate 280, Scott County project.
CEDAR VALLEY CORP.