Cen-Vi-Ro Pipe Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1969

180 N.L.R.B. 344 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cen-Vi-Ro Pipe Corporation and Robert E. Johnson
and Northern California District Council of
Laborers; Construction and General Laborers
Union Local No. 73, AFL-CIO, Parties to the
Contract
Northern California District Council of Laborers;
Construction and General Laborers Union Local
No. 73, AFL-CIO and Robert E. Johnson and
Cen-Vi-Ro Pipe Corporation, Party to the
Contract . Case 20-CA-5228 and 20-CB-1926
December 16, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
On July 17, 1969, Trial Examiner E. Don Wilson
issued his Decision in the above entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondents had engaged in and were
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter
the Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. The
General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial
Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National 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 this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner as modified herein.
As part of the remedy, the Trial Examiner
recommended that Respondent Employer's
employees be reimbursed for initiation fees, dues,
assessments and other monies paid pursuant to the
illegal union security clause. Such reimbursement is
appropriate only to those employees whose
payments were made under the coercion of the
illegal clause.' Consequently the Trial Examiner's
reimbursement order will be modified to be
applicable only to those employees who were not
members of the Union in good standing as of their
date of hire by Respondent Employer.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order, the
'Meyers Bros . of Missouri. Inc. 151 NLRB 890, 891.
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and hereby orders that Respondent,
Cen-Vi-Ro Pipe Corporation, Lockeford, California,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and
Respondents' Northern California District Council
of Laborers, and its Local Union No. 73,
Construction and General Laborers Union,
AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified.
1. Insert in paragraph 2(c) of the Order against
the Company and in the last indented paragraph of
"Appendix A" the words "who were not members
of the Union in good standing at the time of their
hire" between the words "former employees" and
"for."
2. Insert in paragraph 2(c) of the Order against
the Unions and in the last indented paragraph of
"Appendix B" the words "who were not members of
the Union in good standing at the time of their
hire" between the words "of the Employer" and
"for."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
E. DON WILSON , Trial Examiner : Pursuant to due
notice a hearing in these consolidated cases was held
before me on May 13 and 14 , 1969, at Stockton,
California. An order consolidating cases, consolidated
complaint and notice of hearing was issued by the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , herein
the Board , on March 12 , 1969, upon charges filed by
Robert E . Johnson against Cen-Vi-Ro Pipe Corporation,
herein the Employer , on October 3, 1968, and amended
March 6 , 1969, and filed by Johnson against Northern
California District Council of Laborers, herein the
Council , and against Construction and General Laborers
Union Local No. 73, AFL-CIO, herein the Local, on
October 3 , 1968, and amended on March 6 , 1969, both
labor organizations being herein referred to as the Unions
or the Union. The consolidated complaint variously
alleged that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3), (2) and
(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein the Act,
and that the Unions jointly violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2 ) of the Act and that the Local also individually
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by other
independent action . Each of the parties, other than
Johnson who did not choose to enter an appearance, fully
participated . Briefs received from the participating parties
were received on June 9 , 1969, and have been considered.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the
witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
L THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS
At all times material, the Employer has been a
Delaware corporation with a place of business at
Lockeford, California, where it is engaged in the business
of manufacturing cement mortar lined and coated steel
pipe, steel pipe fittings, concrete pipe and machinery. In
the conduct of its business in the past year, the Employer
180 NLRB No. 69
CEN-VI-RO PIPE CORP.
sold and shipped goods and products valued in excess of
$50,000 to customers located outside California. At all
times material the Employer has been engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Each of the Unions is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The issues include the following: (1) Did the Employer
and the Unions violate the Act by entering into and
enforcing an illegal union security contract at a time when
neither nor both Unions represented a majority of the
Employer's employees; (2) Did the Unions illegally cause
the Employer to unlawfully discharge certain employees?
B. Background
The Employer commenced operations at Lockeford,
California, in March 1961 with approximately 20
employees. By the end of 1961, there were about 90
employees. Thereafter, as the Employer completed
contracts the number of employees varied from 5 to 50.
After the peak loads in latter 1961, the average work
force was about 20. Between 1961 and 1964, when there
were no contracts by the Employer for work, there were
several periods when there was no production for 2 weeks
to 2 months. Charles H. Brannen, the Employer's
president, testified that one of the Employer's competitors
has been closed for 4 years and another was shut down for
6 years. Another competitor was closed down from 2
weeks to 6 months. At the time the Lockeford plant was
erected, the Employer spent extra money so that the main
building of the Employer could be dismantled and moved
and reerected, and if necessary brought back to Lockeford
to be used.
In early 1961, the Employer entered into contracts with
the Unions and a third contract was executed effective
May 1, 1963. By its terms, this agreement was to remain
in effect to May 1, 1964. Another agreement was entered
into on May 1, 1964, which was to remain in effect until
May 1, 1966, in the absence of notice from either party.
Very shortly after the 1964 contract was executed, the
plant was shut down by the Employer. For a couple of
months before the shutdown, there were 12 to 18
employees and 6 months prior, there were about 24. At
the time of the shutdown there were just a couple of
employees.' LeGrand A. Pendrey was in charge of the
Lockeford operation for the Employer, at the time of the
shutdown. The shutdown was because of lack of business
and no "formal decision" was made that the Employer
would ever resume production at Lockeford, according to
Pendrey. Because of lack of work Pendrey decided "to
terminate" the operations at Lockeford. To Pendrey's
knowledge, the shutdown followed a discussion between
himself and the president which took place 2 or 3 weeks
before the shutdown. Pendrey told the Unions' business
agent that the Employer had no business and there was
going to be a shutdown and "his2 members would no
longer work at the job." No recall list was made up to be
used in the event of a possible resumption of production.
No specific time for reopening was considered. "It was
simply a matter for the indefinite future that business
345
conditions might change and [the Employer] might
possibly reopen." Pendrey had made no decision to reopen
at any particular time. There was a "possibility" of
reopening at some "unforseeable date." The plant was
shut down about June 28, 1964, and the number of
employees had decreased from 11 on May 3 to 1 as of
June 28. There was no discussion with the Unions or the
employees about any severance pay or recall.
Pendrey, who was in charge of the operations when
they shut down, testified that he learned some of the
equipment and facilities of Lockeford would be moved to
Texas in the summer of 1963. It was transferred in "the
spring of 1964." The building which could be dismantled,
and which was the biggest at Lockeford and the place
where the machinery was kept and operated and where 50
to 60 percent of the work was done, was dismantled and
moved to Texas. In the meanwhile, some work continued.
There is no evidence of any announcement to employees
or the Unions about prospects for future employment
prior to the shutdown.
From about June 28, 1964, until May 1, 1968, there
was no production of any kind at the Lockeford plant
Such buildings as remained at Lockeford were mainly
used for storage. From time to time, during this interval,
the Employer saw to it that the remaining plant
equipment was maintained in good working condition. No
effort was made to sell the remaining equipment or real
estate. Pendrey testified it was expected and hoped that
the equipment which had been moved to Texas would
return to Lockeford. During the shutdown, the Employer
subcontracted some of its work. The Employer did not
bargain with the Unions about this subcontracting. There
was no communication between the Employer and the
Unions during the shutdown until mid-April 1968. In May
1967, Pendrey received an inquiry from the utility
company as to whether the Employer intended to
reactivate the Lockeford plant. Pendrey replied it did.
When a couple of ex-employees inquired of Pendrey as to
when the Lockeford plant would reopen, he told them, "I
didn't know."
Brannen had left the employment of the Employer in
1963, and returned as president in October 1966. He was
interested in reopening the Lockeford plant and was told
by his superiors to gather estimates of costs and forecasts
of profits. He rehired Kenneth Line in November 1966,
and Line engaged in work involving estimates of costs and
profits among other duties. The portable building which
had been moved to Texas in 1964 was returned and stored
at the Lockeford property in 1967. In April 1968, the
Employer began reerecting the building on its original
footings and foundations. Definite permission of the
Employer's Board of Directors to resume production at
Lockeford was obtained in early 1968. On May 1, 1968,
the Employer was still in the process of reconstructing the
large building, and according to Brannen, had only one or
two production employees as a beginning crew.
Brannen testified that in February or March 1968, he
instructed Line to let some of the old employees and other
people in the community know that they were looking for
employees to come to work, with a day in May as a
possibility. He estimated that as of May 1968, his starting
force to complete his first large contract in October 1968,
would be "approximately 20 people." He believed that
was the size of the crew necessary to accomplish the
contracts they then knew about. The Employer did not
'Perhaps one.
'The Unions' representative's
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"actually start hiring until April the 30th." Between
February and April 30, Line contacted about four or five
employees.' They expressed a desire to return to work for
the Employer.
On May 1, 1968, there was one employee who had been
hired that day, one other having been hired on April 30,
who did not come to work. By the end of May, there were
eight, by the end of June, thirteen, and by the end of
August, there were thirty-eight employees.,
It will be remembered that the last contract prior to
May 1, 1968, was executed in 1964, prior to the shutdown.
By its terms, it was effective to May 1, 1966, and
thereafter from year to year in the absence of 60 days
notice No notice was given by any party.
C. The 1968 Contract
In mid-April of 1968, a representative of the Employer
contacted Mr. W. J. Billingsley, the business manager of
the Union Local, tQ inform him of the Employer's plans
to resume production. Representatives of the Employer
and Billingsley and his assistant met at the Local's
headquarters in Stockton about this time and there was a
discussion as to what revisions should be made in the 1964
contract. The parties, in substance, agreed to adopt the
terms of the 1964 agreement with the exception of wages
and fringe benefits. They "had a complete oral agreement
at that time."' At that time there were no production or
maintenance employees of the Employer to be covered by
the agreement. There was no discussion about the Union
representing a majority of the employees.' The contract
was reduced to writing with an effective date of May 1,
1968. The contract contains a union security clause
requiring employees to become members of the Unions on
or immediately following the 31st day of employment and
further provides that upon written notice from the Union'
that an employee has failed to complete the required
membership in the Union or tender periodic dues, the
Employer shall discharge said employee.
In evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit 3 is a list of
hires between April 30 and September 3, 1968, as
prepared under the direction of Line.
Lisle D. Hitchcock is listed as having been hired on
April 30, 1968, but Line testified, "He did not report for
work." The second employee listed as being hired was
Fred Zulin, who was hired on May 1, 1968. No other
employee was hired until May 3, 1968. Thus, it is obvious
that at the time the Employer and the Unions negotiated
the contract in mid-April 1968, there were no employees
and on the effective date of the contract, May 1, 1968,
there was only one employee.
At the time of the hearing herein, there were about 28
or 29 employees. General Counsel's Exhibit 3 reveals that
between April 30 and September 3, 1968, the Employer
hired about 53 employees of whom about 29 were
terminated by October 1968.
At all material times, during interviews of applicants
for employment, they were told that the Employer had a
contract with the Unions and that it contained a union
security clause and that by no later than the 31st day after
employment they would have to pay the Union initiation
'He no doubt spread the word in the community.
,Brannen testified that the payroll was kept for the Lockeford operations
at the Employer 's Shafter plant during this time . Lockeford began to have
a payroll about September 1968.
'Including the union security clause
'Of course , there had been none since June 1964
'The preamble of the contract refers to both Unions as "the Union "
fee and dues.'
Vice President Pendrey testified that the Employer
terminates an employee who doesn't maintain his
membership in the Union, even though there is no letter
from the Union.
D. Concluding Findings as to the Validity of the 1968
Contract
Respondents' argue that the Unions should be
presumed to have had a continuing majority in 1968,
because at the Employer's insistence the Unions
established their majority in 1961. This ignores the fact
that there were no employees at all for the Union to
represent or bargain for at the Employer's Lockeford
plant for about 4 years. Four years, in the circumstances
of this case , is much different than a seasonal layoff or a
temporary shutdown of 2 weeks or 6 months where there
are plans for reopening in the forseeable future and a
reasonable expectation of reemployment by the laid off
employees. Here, Pendrey told the Union's representative
at about the time of the shutdown in 1964, that "his
members would no longer work at the job." They were
through - finished, as of the time of the shutdown. No
recall list was prepared. Obviously this would be so
because, according to Pendrey, no "formal decision ever
to resume production, was made at the time of the
shutdown." True, a "possibility" existed, but no specific
time for resuming operations was even considered. "It was
simply a matter for the indefinite future that business
conditions might change and [the Employer] might
possibly reopen." There is no evidence of any discussion
with either the employees or the Unions about even the
possibility of reemployment of the terminated employees
who had been covered by the 1964 contract. It took
President Brannen from 1966 to 1968 to persuade the
Employer's Board of Directors of the desirability of
reopening the Lockeford plant. There was not a word of
communication between the Employer and the Unions
between 1964 and mid-April 1968. In the 1964 contract
the Employer recognized the Union as the representative
of its employees " in its premises." (Emphasis supplied.)
From 1964 until May 1, 1968,10 there were no employees
in the Employer' s premises and the Unions could not have
been recognized as the bargaining representative of no
employees."
Respondents argue that the 1964 contract, by its terms,
automatically renewed itself on May 1, 1966, and again
on May 1, 1967, and that consequently the Unions
continued to be the representatives of the Employer's
employees at Lockeford. The whole trouble with this
argument is that on each of these dates the Employer had
no employees at Lockeford. Any alleged contracts
between a union and an employer covering wages, hours
and working conditions of non-existent employees' 2 are a
nullity. From the time of the shutdown in 1964, there is
no evidence that there were any employees who had even
an unreasonable expectancy of recall. It was not even
finally decided until 1968 to rebuild and reopen the plant.
In 1966 and 1967, there was still only a possibility that
the plant might reopen in the unforseeable future. I find it
most unrealistic to conceive that labor contracts covering
'About $110 and $10 per month , respectively.
'I have considered their briefs jointly as well as individually
"When there was one employee
"It is obvious that there were no employees who had a reasonable
expectancy of recall.
"With no reasonable expectancy of recall.
CEN-VI-RO PIPE CORP.
wages , hours and working conditions , between unions and
an employer who had no employees and might never have
any, kept on renewing themselves . The Employer was not
an "employer" at Lockeford in 1966 and 1967. The
Unions were not the collective-bargaining representative of
nonexistent employees. The Employer and the Unions
could not have had collective-bargaining agreements
covering the wages, hours and working conditions of no
employees. As Pendrey told the Unions' representative
shortly prior to the 1964 shutdown, "his members would
no longer work at the job." Since there were no
employees in 1966 and 1967, not only was the Employer
not an "employer" but the Unions were obviously not a
majority representative of the non-existent employees.
Thus we come to mid-April 1968, when the Employer
still had no employees and the Employer and the Unions
orally came to a "total agreement" for wages, hours and
working conditions for the Employer's employees,
including a union security clause. At least as of 1966 and
1967, the Unions had ceased to be the representative of
any of the Employer's employees." Such was equally true
in mid-April 1968, when the Employer still had no
employees. The oral agreement was consequently an
empty shell as of that time.
In evidence is the 1968 written agreement between the
Unions and the Employer. It spells out that it was "made
and entered into ... on the 1st day of May, 1968." I have
already noted President Brannen's testimony that his crew
to complete his first large contract by October 1968 would
be "approximately 20 people." In fact, according to
General Counsel's Exhibit 3, between May 1, 1968 and
September 3, 1968, the Employer hired 53 production and
maintenance employees and terminated 29 of these by
October 1968. Thus, by October 1968, there were about
24 employees although more may have been hired between
September 3, and October 1968. Line, the Employer's
production manager , testified that there were about 28 or
29 such employees on May 13, 1969, at the time of the
hearing. There is no evidence that between September 3,
1968 and the date of the hearing, the Employer's
employees ever dropped below 24 in number and, of
course, that number has been exceeded. Thus, since its
normal complement of employees since September 1968
has exceeded at least 20, the Unions did not represent a
majority of the Employer's employees when the Unions
made and entered into their written collective-bargaining
agreement on May 1, 1968. On that date there was only
one employee, Zulin. It is true that General Counsel's
Exhibit 3, prepared by Line's direction, lists Hitchcock as
having been hired by the Employer on April 30, 1968, but
Line testified at the hearing, "he did not report for work."
It is obvious that the Unions could not have been the
collective - bargaining representative on the date that the
May 1, 1968 written contract was entered into. It is
likewise obvious that the Employer did not have a
substantial and representative complement of employees
on May 1, 1968. There is no evidence that on that date
production or maintenance had even started. The
Employer and the Unions both knew on this date that
there would be a substantial expansion in personnel. The
numerous job classifications referred to in the contract did
not even exist on May 1, 1968.
That Line contacted former employees, some of whom
may have been union members, prior to May 1, 1968, and
inquired if they would like to return to work and received
"There being none.
347
favorable replies, did not make such former employees,
"employees" on May 1, 1968, since they were not hired
until a subsequent time. '° May 1, 1968, is the controlling
date. The Unions did not represent a majority of the
representative work force on that date. Indeed, the only
testimony as to Zulin's membership is that of Line who
testified that Zulin was sent to the Employer by the
Union. The Union might have sent a nonmember. I note
that in many instances , Line exhibited an uncertain
memory and was frequently vague. While I credit Line's
testimony that Hitchcock did not report for work, I was
unfavorably impressed by Line's demeanor.
I find that by entering into and giving force and effect
to the May 1, 1968, collective- bargaining contract,
containing a union security clause, the Employer violated
Section 8(a)(1), (2) and (3) of the Act and the Unions
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. I find that
the Employer gave unlawful assistance and support to the
Unions by granting them recognition before it had a
representative work force and at a time when the
complement of personnel was in the process of a planned
rapid expansion according to the testimony of Brannen
and the facts as they developed in the entire record. The
union security clause requiring employees to pay initiation
fees and dues to Unions not of their own choosing, on
penalty of discharge, resulted in discrimination with
respect to the terms and conditions of their employment
and thus encouraged membership in the Unions within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Thus has the
Employer interfered with, restrained and coerced its
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
It needs no extended discussion to find that the Unions
which did not represent a majority of a representative
number of the Employer's employees on May 1, 1968,
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by entering
into the union security contract on that date and entering
into the oral agreement in mid -April 1968.
I find that the union security clauses of the May 1,
1968, contract were illegal under the Act and could not be
lawfully enforced.
E. The Discharges
The complaint lists seven employees as having been
discharged by the Employer at the Local's request for
failure to comply with the illegal union security clauses.
They are Eddie V. Edgerly, Terry D. Mulka, Kenneth W.
Bryant, Billy L. Ellis, Keith M. Shelstead, William H.
Linsley, and Doyle G. Harris.
1. Linsley
The General Counsel states in his brief that he does not
now contend that the record evidence supports a finding of
a discriminatory discharge of Linsley. Thus, I find no
violation by the Local or the Employer in the termination
of Linsley. It is to be noted that the complaint alleges
violations with respect to causing or attempting to cause
individual discharges only by the Local and not by the
Council. Thus, I find no violations by the Council with
respect to any of the terminations by the Employer.
"Only 5 of the 32 employees employed by the Employer m the 3 months
preceding the shutdown were rehired during the first 4 months of the
Employer 's 1968 operation.
"Cf. A. 0. Smith Corporation , 122 NLRB 321.
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Bryant
Bryant was hired by the Employer on August 14, 1968.
He, as well as all other new employees, was told he would
have to join the Union in 31 days as a condition of
employment. He did not pay his $110 initiation fee and
dues within the prescribed time. About three weeks later,
Foreman Jim Hardesty" reminded Bryant that he was due
to pay his dues the following week. Bryant replied,
"Fine." On the day the initiation fee and dues were due,
Hardesty reminded him again and Bryant said he didn't
have the money but could probably pick it up the
following week. Hardesty said, "Fine." Shortly thereafter,
Hardesty told him he would have to pay his initiation fee
or his employment would be terminated. This was on a
Tuesday or a Wednesday and Hardesty told him he "had
till Friday to pay it or out I went." On Friday, Bryant
told Hardesty he couldn't see any future in either the shop
or the Union and couldn't see the sense in paying the
money to the Union. Bryant said he was going to quit and
look for work in another area. Hardesty had told Bryant
that he had received a letter from the Union seeking
Bryant's termination for failure to comply with the union
security clause. I do not consider this as substantial
evidence that the Union did send such a letter. The May
1, 1968 contract provides for written notice from the
Union for failure to pay initiation fee and dues. In the
absence of substantial and probative evidence of any such
written notice by the Union in the case of Bryant, I find
insufficient evidence of any violation by the Union in the
case of Bryant. Bryant testified he is not interested in
going back to work for the Employer. He did not like his
job with the Employer and one of the reasons for his
quitting was that he didn't think the $110 initiation fee
would get him job security, after he left the Employer. He
testified that the requirement of the Employer that he pay
the $110 to the Union entered into his decision to quit. He
considered himself a welder and he didn't see any sense in
joining the Union which he thought could do nothing for
him as a welder. He quit because "this union thing stuck
right in my craw." He further testified that he did very
little welding on the job and that he would not have quit if
he had been doing the work he wanted to do. He
subsequently testified that the fact the contract required
him to join the Laborers Union had "something" to do
with his quitting.
I cannot ignore the testimony of Bryant that he would
not have quit his job if he had been doing the work he
wanted to do. Based on this testimony, I find he quit
because he didn't like his job which didn't include enough
welding. In light of this testimony, I do not credit his
other testimony that he quit rather than join the Union as
the contract and the Employer required him to. I can only
conclude that the illegal union security clause had nothing
to do with his termination and that there is insufficient
probative evidence that the Employer violated the Act
with respect to Bryant's termination. In making this
finding, I note that I have previously found that in
enforcing the union security clause the Employer does not
necessarily wait for a written notice from the Union.
3. Doyle Harris
Harris was hired by the Employer in July 1968. After
he had worked there 30 days or more, he paid his
initiation fee and dues as he was told by the Employer
"A supervisor within the meaning of the Act
was required. He ceased paying his dues. Line testified in
effect that the Employer lived up to its agreement with the
Union and if it got a notice from the Union that an
employee didn't pay his initiation fees or dues and should
be terminated, the Employer saw to it that the employees
paid up or terminated them. He would get a letter from
the Union and tell the employee he had to pay his dues or
quit, "because you can't work here if you don't pay your
dues."
On November 8, 1968, the Union wrote a letter to the
Employer asking that Harris be terminated unless he
again became a member of the Local, since he had failed
to remain a member of the Local. The Employer
terminated Harris on November 12. Harris didn't pay his
dues because he thought he wasn't being represented by
the Union and he didn't think the Union could get him a
job if he was laid off. When he was terminated,
Supervisor King showed him the letter from the Union
and told him he had to catch up on all his dues or
penalties or he would be terminated. He wouldn't pay up
and he was terminated. By its demand for Harris'
termination, the Local violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)
of the Act. By terminating Harris because he wouldn't
pay the dues required by the illegal union security
contract, and at the demand of the Local, the Employer
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
4 William (Billy) Ellis
Ellis was hired by the Employer on September 3, 1968.
When he was hired he was told he had 30 days to pay
$110 to the Union or lose his job. He did not pay the
initiation fee or dues. On October 18, Foreman Jim
Hardesty gave him until noon of that day to pay up. Ellis
said he would try but he couldn't. That morning Hardesty
told him that if he didn't settle up with the Union, "that
was the end of the job." Hardesty had told him earlier
around October 6 or 7 that he had to pay dues. In an
affidavit he gave to a Board agent, he stated that on the
afternoon of October 18 he spoke to the Employer's
secretary, Lucy Brandt, and told her he was quitting. He
testified this was not true, adding that when he gave the
statement he was awakened from bed after only 2 hours'
sleep. I credit his explanation. However, even if he had
told Brandt he was quitting, it would have been the only
alternative to the failure to pay the unlawful initiation fee
and dues. He was told in the morning that if he didn't pay
up that day the job was through.
On October 4, 1968, the Union wrote the Employer a
letter requesting the termination of Ellis.
I find the Union violated 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act
by requesting the termination of Ellis on October 4, and
that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by terminating him on October 18.,
5. Keith M. Shelstead
Shelstead was hired by the Employer on August 20,
1968. When he was hired he was told he'd have to pay the
Union $110 at the end of 30 or 31 days. He didn't do so
because he couldn't afford it. Hardesty told him his 30
days were up and Shelstead told him he was having some
personal problems and couldn't afford it. Hardesty told
him to try to get paid up. Some time later Hardesty told
him they had received a letter from the Union and if
Shelstead wasn't paid up by Friday morning, they would
have to let him go. He didn't pay up and told Hardesty he
couldn't because of personal financial problems. On that
CEN-VI-RO PIPE CORP.
Friday, October 18, Hardesty told him he'd have to let
him go. Hardesty terminated him. If Shelstead had had
the money, he would have paid.
On September 30, the Local wrote the Employer
stating that Shelstead hadn't paid his dues, and requesting
his termination.
I find the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by terminating Shelstead and the Union violated
Section 8(b)(l) (A) and (2) of the Act by requesting his
termination.
6. Eddie Edgerly
Edgerly did not testify.
Line testified that if the Employer got a notice from the
Union that an employee should be terminated for failure
to comply with the union security agreement, the
Employer would either see that the employee complied or
terminated him.
Line testified that on September 10, the Union wrote a
letter to the Employer and on September 16, Edgerly
received his last check. Edgerly filed for unemployment in
Idaho and on November 4, the Employer wrote to the
Department of Employment, State of Idaho, saying that
Edgerly may very well have quit because he couldn't pay
the Union the sum of $110.25. Line testified that one of
the reasons listed in his personnel file for his termination
was, "that he was not paying his dues." In its letter to the
Department of Employment, the Employer stated that the
contract with the Unions required payment of initiation
fee, dues and life insurance, obviously as a condition of
employment.
I find from the context of the entire record that the
Union's letter of September 10, was a request for
Edgerly's discharge in default of his complying with the
illegal union security requirements.
As General Counsel correctly points out, that an
employee chose to quit rather than be fired does not
relieve Respondents of their liability for setting in motion
the illegal forces that caused him to quit.
I find the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act in connection with the termination of Edgerly and
the Local violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act.
7. Terry D. Mulka
On August 26, the Local wrote the Employer saying
that Mulka hadn't paid his dues and the Employer should
terminate him. Mulka was terminated by the Employer on
September 27. According to G.C. 3, Mulka was hired on
July 24, 1968. Line testified that Mulka's personnel file
stated that a reason for his leaving his employment was
"personal problems." This testimony means nothing to
me. The fact is, as testified to by Line, that the Union
demanded Mulka' s termination by letter on August 26
and he was terminated on September 27. The "personal
problems" may well have been that he didn't pay his
initiation fee and dues. I find the Local violated Section
8(b)(1) (A) and (2) of the Act and the Employer violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act in the termination of
Mulka.
W. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Unions and the Employer set forth
in section III, above, occurring in connection with the
operations of the Employer described in section I, above,
349
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Unions and the Employer have
engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Employer discriminated with
respect to the employment of Harris, Ellis, Shelstead,
Edgerly and Mulka to encourage union membership,
pursuant to an illegal union security agreement, in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and that its
employees were interfered with, restrained and coerced
thereby in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
Respondent Local has been found to have illegally caused
the Employer to engage in the above-noted proscribed
conduct. It will be recommended that the Local send
written notice to the discriminatees and the Employer that
it has withdrawn its objection to their employment by the
Employer. The notice to the Employer' should also request
the Employer to offer the discriminatees immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to seniority or
other rights and privileges. It will also be recommended
that the Employer offer the discriminatees immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges.
Also, it will be recommended that the Local and the
Employer, jointly and severally, make each of the above
discriminatees whole for any loss of earnings sustained by
reason of the discrimination against each, by the payment
to each of a sum of money equal to the amount each
would have earned in the Employer's employ between the
date each was discriminatorily terminated and the date of
an unconditional offer of reinstatement by the Employer,
less his net earnings during the interim. Backpay shall be
computed in accordance with the Board's formula stated
in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, together with
6-percent interest as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716. The Local's liability for backpay
shall be terminated in the case of each discriminatee by
sending the written notices referred to above. Absent such
notices the Local should remain jointly and severally
liable with the Employer for all backpay that may accrue.
It will also be recommended that the Employer preserve
and, upon request, make available to the Board and its
agents all pertinent payroll and other records.
It shall be further recommended that the Employer
cease and desist from assisting the Unions or any other
labor organization; discriminating against employees;
interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed-by Section 7 of the
Act; recognizing or contracting with the Unions or either
of them unless and until certification by the Board; giving
effect to the May 1, 1968 contract with the Unions or any
modification or renewal thereof; or in any other manner
interfering with , restraining , or coercing its employees in
their Section 7 rights because the Employer' s violations
strike at the heart of the Act.
It shall further be recommended that the Employer,
jointly and severally with the Unions and each of them,
reimburse all its present and former employees since May
350 i DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1, 1968, for all initiation fees , dues , assessments and other
monies paid to the Unions or either of them as a
condition of employment pursuant to the illegal union
security agreement , with interest at 6 percent.
It shall further be recommended that the Employer post
notices , hereinafter to be set forth.
It shall further be recommended that the Unions, and
each of them , shall cease and desist from acting as
collective -bargaining agent for any of the Employer's
employees unless and until certified by the Board ; giving
effect to their contract with the Employer dated May 1,
1968, or any modification or renewal thereof ; or in any
other manner restraining or coercing employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
It shall further be recommended that the Unions, and
each of them , jointly and severally with the Employer
reimburse present and former employees of the Employer
for all initiation fees, dues , assessments and other monies
paid to them, or either of them , as a condition of
employment by the Employer, since May 1, 1968, with
interest at 6 percent , and that the Unions , and each of
them, preserve and make available to the Board and its
agents, upon request , for examination and copying, all
membership , initiation fees , dues, and other records
necessary to compute the monies illegally exacted from
the Employer 's employees since May 1, 1968.
It shall further be recommended that the Unions post
notices, hereinafter to be set forth.
It shall further be recommended that the Local, jointly
and severally with the Employer , as set forth above, make
whole Harris , Ellis, Shelstead , Edgerly , and Mulka for
any losses of pay they may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them , with interest at 6 percent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in this proceeding , I make the
following conclusions of law:
1. The Employer is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Council and the Local are , each, labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause and causing the Employer to
terminate Harris , Ellis, Shelstead , Edgerly, and Mulka for
discriminatory reasons , in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act, the Local has violated Section 8 (b)(1)(A) and (2)
of the Act.
4. By terminating Harris, Ellis , Shelstead , Edgerly, and
Mulka for failing to comply with the requirements of an
illegal union security clause in its unlawful contract with
the Unions , the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.
5. By entering into , performing and maintaining and
giving force and effect to a collective-bargaining
agreement containing a union security clause since May 1,
1968, when the Unions did not represent an uncoerced
majority of the Employer 's employees and by discharging
the above-named discriminatees because of their lack of
membership in the Local and their lack of compliance
with the illegal union security clause , the Employer
violated Section 8(a)(3), (2 ), and (1) of the Act.
6. By entering into, performing and maintaining and
giving force and effect to a collective-bargaining
agreement with the Employer , containing a union security
clause since May 1, 1968, when the Unions did not
represent an uncoerced majority of the Employer's
employees , the Unions , each , violated Section 8(b)(I)(A)
and (2 ) of the Act.
7. By causing or attempting to cause the Employer to
discharge Harris , Ellis, Shelstead , Edgerly, and Mulka
because of their lack of membership in the Local, and
their failure to comply with the terms of the illegal union
security agreement , the Local violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2 ) of the Act.
8. 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 , it is recommended that the Employer,
its officers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assisting the Unions or either of them or any other
labor organization , by entering into a collective -bargaining
agreement with both or either of them or any other labor
organization , at a time when neither nor both nor any
represent a majority of the Employer ' s employees.
(b) Encouraging membership in either or both of the
Unions by terminating employees because they are not
members of the Local or have not complied with the
terms of an illegal union security clause, or by
discriminating against them in any other manner in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment , or any other term
or condition of their employment , except to the extent
permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) Interfering with , restraining , or coercing employees,
or prospective employees , in any other manner in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own free choice and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection,
or to refrain from any and all such activities except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization, as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
(d) Recognizing or contracting with the Unions or
either of them unless and until the Unions or either of
them are certified by the Board as the majority
representative of its employees.
(e) Giving effect to or performing , maintaining or
giving force to its May 1, 1968, contract with the Unions
or any modification or renewal thereof, or any
superseding agreement , except that any benefits now
enjoyed by the Employer ' s employees are not to be
diminished by such action on the part of the Employer.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Harris, Ellis, Shelstead , Edgerly, and
Mulka immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed by them.
(b) Jointly and severally with the Local, make whole
Harris , Ellis, Shelstead , Edgerly , and Mulka for any loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination practiced against them , in the manner set
forth in "The Remedy" section of this Decision.
(c) Jointly and severally with the Unions , and each of
them , reimburse its present and former employees for all
initiation fees, dues , assessments and other monies paid to
the Unions, or either of them , as a condition of
CEN-VI-RO PIPE CORP. 351
employment, since May 1, 1968, with 6 percent interest.
(d) Preserve and make available to the Board or its
agents, upon request, 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
and the rights of employment under the terms of this
Decision.
(e) Post at its offices and those places where notices to
employees customarily are posted copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A."" Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20,
shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Employer, be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period
of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Employer to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Post at the same places and under the same
conditions as set forth in (e) above, and as soon as they
are forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of the
joint Unions' notice herein marked "Appendix B."
(g) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 20 signed
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix
A" for posting by the Local and the Council at their
offices where notices to members and other persons using
their respective facilities are customarily posted. Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director,
shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Employer, be forthwith returned to
the Regional Director for such posting.
(h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision
what steps the Employer has taken to comply herewith."
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Unions, the
Local, and the Council, and each or either of them, as set
forth herein, their officers, representatives, agents,
successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Giving effect to or performing, maintaining, or
enforcing their May 1, 1968, contract with the Employer,
or any modification or renewal thereof, or any
superseding agreement.
(b) Acting as collective- bargaining agent for any
employees of the Employer, unless and until either or both
are certified by the Board as majority representative.
(c) The Local, in particular, shall cease and desist from
causing or attempting to cause the Employer to terminate
or otherwise discriminate against any employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act because they are
not members of the Local or the Council, or otherwise,
except to the extent permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
(d) The Unions, individually and jointly, shall cease and
desist , in any other manner, from restraining or coercing
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice . In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
"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 20, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith."
employees of the Employer, in the exercise of their rights
as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which, I find,
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) The Local shall send written notice to the
Employer, with copies thereof furnished to Harris, Ellis,
Shelstead, Edgerly and Mulka, that it has withdrawn its
objections to their employment, and that it has no
objection to their employment or that of any other person,
based upon lack of membership in or lack of payment of
any monies to either or both of the Unions.
(b) The Local shall, jointly and severally with the
Employer, make whole Harris, Ellis, Shelstead, Edgerly,
and Mulka for any loss of pay they may have suffered as
a result of the discrimination practiced against them, in
the manner set forth in the section of this Decision
entitled "The Remedy."
(c) The Unions, each and both, shall, jointly and
severally with the Employer, reimburse all present and
former employees of the Employer for all initiation fees,
dues, assessments , and other monies paid to them or
either of them as a condition of employment under the
illegal union security clause, liability therefor to begin on
May 1, 1968, with interest at 6 percent.
(d) The Unions, each and both of them, shall preserve
and make available to the Board and its agents, upon
request, for examination and copying, all membership,
initiation fees, dues, assessments and all other records
necessary to compute the monies illegally exacted from
employees of the Employer since May 1, 1968.
(e) Each and both of the Unions shall post at their
offices, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix B."19 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 20, shall, after being duly signed by authorized
representatives of each Union, be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained by each Union for
60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by each Union to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced or covered by any other material.
(f) Post at the same places and under the same
conditions as set forth in (e), above, and as soon as they
are forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of the
Employer's notice herein marked "Appendix A."
(g) The Unions, and each of them, shall mail to the
Regional Director for Region 20 signed copies of
"Appendix B" for posting by the Employer as provided
herein . Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the said
Regional Director, shall, after being signed by each of the
Unions' representatives, be forthwith returned to the
Regional Director for such posting.
(h) Each Union shall notify the Regional Director for
Region 20, in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of
this Decision, as to what steps each Union has taken to
comply herewith. S°
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be "substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 20, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps each Union has taken to comply herewith."
other monies paid to the Unions or either of them as an
illegal condition of employment, since May 1, 1968,
together with interest at 6 percent.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT assist either Northern California
District Council of Laborers, herein the Council, or
Construction and General Laborers Union Local No.
73, AFL-CIO, herein the Local, or both of them, herein
the Unions , by entering into or maintaining or
enforcing or giving effect to a collective- bargaining
agreement with either or both of them at a time when
neither nor both represent a majority of our employees.
Our employees are free to join or not to join any
union or unions of their own free choice.
WE WILL NOT assist or encourage membership in
either or both of the above Unions by terminating
employees because they are not members of the Local
or by discriminating against them in any other manner
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any
other term or condition of their employment , except to
the extent that such conditions of employment may be
lawfully established by an agreement executed in
conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with , restrain or coerce our
employees in any other manner in the exercise of their
right to self-organization , to form, join or assist labor
organizations , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own free choice , and to engage
in other concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining and other mutual aid and
protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization , as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT recognize or contract with either the
Local or the Council or both of them unless and until
both or either of them are certified by the Board as the
representative of the majority of our employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to or perform or maintain
or give force to our May 1, 1968, contract with the
Unions or any modification or renewal thereof or any
superseding agreement , except that any benefits now
enjoyed by our employees will not be diminished by
such action on our part.
WE WILL offer to Doyle G. Harris, Billy L . Ellis,
Keith M. Shelstead , Eddie V. Edgerly , and Terry D.
Mulka immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed by them.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with the Local, make
whole Harris , Ellis, Shelstead , Edgerly, and Mulka for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination we practiced against them at the request
of the Local, together with 6 percent interest.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with each and both of
the Unions , reimburse all our present and former
employees for all initiation fees , dues, assessments and
Dated By
CEN-VI-Ro PIPE
CORPORATION
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
Note: WE WILL notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their rights to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 13050 Federal
Building , 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San
Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556-0335.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LABORERS ; CONSTRUCTION AND
GENERAL LABORERS UNION LOCAL No. 73, AFL-CIO
AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF CEN-VI-Ro PIPE
CORPORATION
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that,
WE, the Council and the Local, WILL NOT give effect
to or perform or maintain or enforce our May 1, 1968
contract with Cen-Vi-Ro Pipe Corporation, the
Employer, at Lockeford, California, or any
modification or renewal thereof, or any superseding
agreement.
WE WILL NOT, nor either of us, act as
collective- bargaining agent for any employees of the
Employer, unless and until either or both of us are
certified as such agent by the National Labor Relations
Board.
The Local, in particular, WILL NOT cause or attempt
to cause the Employer to terminate or otherwise
discriminate against any employees of the Employer, in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, because they are
not members of the Local or the Council, or both, or
because they have not paid monies to either or both of
the Unions, except to the extent permitted by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
CEN-VI-RO PIPE CORP.
WE, the Council and the Local, individually and
jointly, WILL NOT, in any other manner , restrain or
coerce employees of the Employer in the exercise of
their rights as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act,
except in a manner in conformity with Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act
The Local WILL send written notice to the Employer,
with copies thereof to be furnished to Doyle G. Harris,
Billy L. Ellis, Keith M. Shelstead, Eddie V. Edgerly,
and Terry D. Mulka, that it has withdrawn its objection
to their employment and that it has no objections to
their employment or that of any other person, based
upon lack of membership in or lack of payment of any
monies to both the Local and the Council or either of
them.
WE, the Local, WILL, jointly and severally with the
Employer make whole Harris, Ellis, Shelstead, Edgerly,
and Mulka for any loss of pay they, or any of them,
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them by the Employer at our request , together
with interest at 6 percent.
WE, the Local and the Council, and each of us,
WILL, jointly and severally with the Employer,
reimburse all present and former employees of the
Employer for all initiation fees, dues, assessments and
other monies paid to us, or either of us , as a condition
353
of employment, liability therefor to begin on May 1,
1968, together with interest at 6 percent.
Dated By
Dated By
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
LABORERS
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
CONSTRUCTION AND
GENERAL LABORERS
UNION LOCAL
No. 73, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Persons having any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, may communicate directly
with the Board's Regional Office, 13050 Federal Building,
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco,
California 94102, Telephone 556-0335