City Roofing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 786 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
City Roofing Co . and R. O. Pyle Roofing Co. and
Robert L. Dixon, a sole Proprietor , d/b/a Custom
Roofing and Deloris Terhaar and Marvin Terhaar,
d/b/a Inland Empire Roofers and United Slate,
Tile & Composition Roofers , Damp & Waterproof
Workers ' Association, Local No . 189, AFL-CIO.
Cases 19-CA-7679, 19-CA-7680, 19-CA-7760,
and 19-CA-7761
February 6, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On October 29, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Earldean V. S. Robbins issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents City
Roofing Co. and R. O. Pyle Roofing Co. filed excep-
tions and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions I of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt her recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent City Roofing Co., Spokane,
Washington ; Respondent R. O. Pyle Roofing Co.,
Pullman, Washington ; Respondent Robert Dixon,
d/b/a Custom Roofing, Spokane , Washington; and
Respondent Deloris Terhaar and Marvin Terhaar,
d/b/a Inland Empire Roofers, their officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
Respondents City Roofing and Pyle Roofing contend that these pro-
ceedmgs against them are barred by Sec 10(b) of the Act They note that
certain circuit courts have rejected the Board's holding that the refusal to
honor a collective-bargaining agreement constitutes a continuing violation
for the term of the agreement See, e.g., N L R B v. Field and Sons, Inc 462
F 2d 748 (C.A 1, 1972), and N L.R B v. Serv-All Co, Inc, 491 F.2d 1273
(C.A. 10, 1974), but cf. N.L.R B v Joseph T. Strong, d/b/a Strong Roofing
and Insulating Co, 386 F.2d 929 (C.A. 9, 1967). However, in this case, we
need not reach the issues raised by Respondents' contentions. Here, based
on the Administrative Law Judge's credibility resolutions which we adopt, it
is clear that Respondents City Roofing and Pyle Roofing did not unequivo-
cally repudiate the 1974-77 collective-bargammg agreement until January
1975. Prior to that time, these Respondents had only indicated a possibility
that they might not comply with the agreement. Inasmuch as the charges
were filed against these Respondents on April 16, 1975, we conclude that
the violations found herein clearly occurred within the 10(b) period
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EARLDEAN V.S. ROBBINS, Administrative Law Judge:
These cases were heard before me in Spokane, Washing-
ton, on September 3 and 4, 1975. The charges in Cases
19-CA-7679 and 19-CA-7680 were filed by United Slate,
Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp & Waterproof Work-
ers' Association, Local No. 189, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union and served on Respondent City Roofing Co.,
herein called City Roofing, and Respondent R. O. Pyle
Roofing Co., herein called Pyle Roofing, respectively, on
April 16, 1975. The charges in Cases 19-CA-7760 and
19-CA-7761 were filed by the Union and served on Re-
spondent Robert L. Dixon, a -sole Proprietor, d/b/a Cus-
tom Roofing Co., herein called Custom Roofing and Re-
spondent Deloris Terhaar and Marvin Terhaar, d/b/a
Inland Empire Roofers, herein called Inland Roofers, re-
spectively, on June 4, 1975. The consolidated complaints
which issued on May 22, 1975, in Cases 19-CA-7679 and
19-CA-7680, and on July 10, 1975, in Cases 19-CA-7760
and 19-CA-7761, allege that City Roofing, Pyle Roofing,
Custom Roofing and Inland Roofers, herein collectively
called Respondents, each has violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the National Labor Relations Act. On July 10, 1975,
an order issued consolidating these cases for the purposes
of hearing and decision by an administrative law judge.
Oral argument was made by General Counsel and Pyle
Roofing and a posthearing brief was filed by City Roofing.
The basic issues herein are whether Respondents are
bound by a collective-bargaining agreement between the
Union and Inland Empire Roofing Contractors Associa-
tion, herein called the Association; and whether Respon-
dents' conduct is outside the Section 10(b) period.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses and after due consideration of the brief filed by
City Roofing and the oral arguments made by General
Counsel and Pyle Roofing, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Pyle Roofing with its principal place of business in Pull-
man, Washington, and City Roofing, Custom Roofing, and
Inland Roofers each with its principal place of business in
Spokane, Washington, are each engaged in the business of
roofing houses and buildings.
The complaint alleges, the Respondents stipulate, and I
find that the Association is a multiemployer association
with offices in Spokane, Washington, which exists for the
purpose, inter alia, of representing certain employers, here-
in called employer-members, in collective bargaining with
the Union. The employer-members annually have com-
bined sales of goods and services valued in excess of
$500,000 and annually purchase goods and materials val-
ued in excess of $50,000 which originate from points direct-
ly outside the State of Washington.
Upon the pleadings and the evidence, I find that at all
times material herein, Respondents each has been a mem-
222 NLRB No. 119
CITY ROOFING CO.
her of the Association and each has authorized the Associ-
ation to represent it in collective bargaining with the
Union. I further find that the Association and its employ-
er-members, including Respondents, are now, and have
been at all times material herein, employers within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce
and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges and I find, based on admissions
and stipulations by the Respondents, that at all times mate-
rial herein, the Union has been a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
The Association and the Union have been parties to suc-
cessive collective -bargaining agreements for more than 20
years. For the past 15 or 17 years, prior to the commence-
ment of negotiations , the Association has secured from its
employer-members an assignment of bargaining rights.
During this same period of time, it has been the practice
for the Association, rather than the employer -members, to
sign the collective-bargaining agreement.'
Custom Roofing, Pyle Roofing, and Inland Roofers ad-
mit that their employees were covered by the 1971-74 col-
lective-bargaining agreement ' between the Union and the
Association . City Roofing admits that it abided by the
terms of that agreement but denied that it was obligated to
do so inasmuch as' it did not sign the contract .2
The expiration date of the 1971-74 collective-bargaining
agreement was June 30 , 1974.3 On March 8, the Associa-
tion notified the Union that negotiations on its behalf
would be conducted by a four-person negotiating commit-
tee which included Robert Dixon , owner of Custom Roof-
ing. Around the third week in March, the Union notified
the Association and its employer-members of its intent to
negotiate changes in wages and working conditions. On
March 3 , 4, and 24, and May 10, respectively , Pyle Roof-
ing, City Roofing, Custom Roofing, and Inland Roofers
executed an assignment of bargaining rights, the body of
which states:
ASSIGNMENT OF BARGAINING RIGHTS
We hereby, this day of 19
do assign our bargaining rights to the Inland Empire
Roofing Contractors Association.
i This is from the undisputed testimony of Robert Brandt , president of
the Association , whom I credit
2 The current owners of City Roofing acquired the business in 1970. City
Roofing admits that upon acquisition of the business , it signed a written
ratification of the collective -bargaining agreement which expired in June
1971. The new owners did not join the Association until March 1972.
3 All dates hereinafter are in 1974 unless otherwise indicated
787
We hereby authorize the Labor Committee of the
Inland Empire Roofing Contractors Association to
carry on negotiations on our behalf for labor rates and
working conditions with Roofers' Locals in the Inland
Empire with whom it may become necessary for the
Association to negotiate.
Negotiations began on May 4. On July 1 the Union com-
menced a strike against members of the Association. On
July 17, agreement was reached on a contract to be effec-
tive July 1, 1974, through June 30, 1977, subject to ratifica-
tion by the union membership. The agreement was ratified
on July 214
It is undisputed that none of the Respondents, prior to
commencement of negotiations or even prior to the reach-
ing of the agreement, gave the Union notice of intent to
withdraw from the multiemployer bargaining unit. Roy
Pyle 5 and Frank Thiery 6 contend that they so notified the
Association. However, according to Association President
Brandt, what conversations he had with them regarding an
intent not to be bound by the 1974-77 agreement, were
either prior to their execution of the assignment of bargain-
ing rights forms or subsequent to the commencement of
negotiation.
During the course of the strike, on July 18, Custom
Roofing signed an interim agreement, the body of which
reads:
Interim Agreement with Local
Union 189
July 1, 1974-June 30, 1975
The undersigned agrees to the terms of the prior
contract except for the exclusions listed below until
such time that the new contract agreement is finalized
by normal channels between Roofer's Local Union
#189 and Inland Empire Roofing Contractors Associ-
ation.
Pension . 15¢, Health and Welfare .25¢, Dental .106,
and Wages $7.95 for a total of $8.45.
For all jobs outside the City Limits, the Employee
shall receive .154 a mile Travel-Pay.
Subsistence shall be $15.00 a day.
An addendum attached thereto states:
In the event that Roofer's Local Union # 189 and In-
land Empire Roofing Contractors Association, do not
come to a final contract agreement by Jan. 1, 1975 the
wage package shall be increased .30¢ for a total of
$8.75.
According to Dixon, he signed the interim agreement so
that his employees would return to work on Friday, July
19, prior to the ratification of the contract by the union
membership?
On July 10, also during the course of the strike, City
Roofing resumed operations with nonunion help . On about
4 The agreement was signed by the Union and the Association on about
November 10.
5 Part owner of Pyle Roofing
6 Part owner of City Roofing.
7 It rained on July 19 so Custom Roofing did not resume operations until
Monday, July 22.
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
July 22, Max Kinsey Robinson, union business agent, tele-
phoned Thiery with regard to City Roofing's delinquent
vacation fund payments. According to Robinson, during
the course of the conversation, he advised Thiery that the
contract had been ratified and asked if City Roofing was
going to honor it. Thiery said he was not certain. Accord-
ing to Thiery, Robinson inquired if he was going to contin-
ue operating nonunion or if he intended to affiliate again
with the Union. Thiery said he had not seen the contract
and he would not commit himself without knowing what
was in it. After discussing the vacation fund matter, Rob-
inson again asked Thiery if he was going to be affiliated
with the Union. Thiery said until he saw a contract he
wasn't. Robinson said he required an immediate answer.
Thiery replied under the circumstances s Robinson and the
Union could go to hell.
Robinson's undenied testimony, which I credit, is that
sometime in the latter part of August, on a visit to a con-
struction site, he noticed that City Roofing was utilizing
nonunion employees. Robinson asked City Roofing's fore-
man and part-owner, Abelman, if City Roofing
was planning on honoring the contract and operating
union. Abelman said he was not sure.
According to Robinson, on October 11, he had a conver-
sation with Roy O. Pyle, owner of Pyle Roofing. He asked
Pyle if he was going to comply with the contract. Pyle said
he would comply on union jobs but not on nonunion jobs.
Pyle denies making this latter statement. According to him,
Robinson said he wanted to explain some of the benefits of
the contract to Pyle. Pyle said he was not interested.
During the first week in October, on a visit to a construc-
tion site, Robinson noticed that Inland Roofers had some
nonunion employees. He complained to the foreman who
told him that these employees would be required to join the
Union and would be reported to the Union in November.9
In December, the Union was notified that Respondents
had failed to make the contributions to the various benefit
funds as required by the collective-bargaining agreement.
On December 30, the Union sent identical letters to each
of the Respondents, the body of which states:
Because of your consistent refusal to honor the col-
lective bargaining agreement of July 1, 1974, between
the Inland Empire Roofing Contractors Association
and Roofers Local Union #189, we find it necessary
to invoke the grievance procedure as outlined in sec-
tion 26 of the said agreement.
Your company has allegedly violated the following
sections of the agreement: (5, 6, 8, and 9).
I expect a meeting with you at a mutually conven-
ient time to discuss the enforcement of the collective
bargaining agreement. If no response is forthcoming
within 10 days of the date of this letter, I will consider
it necessary to request a special meeting before the
Labor Relations Committee in order to settle the dis-
pute.
On January 23, 1975, the Union and all Respondents,
except Pyle Roofing, met with the Labor Relations Com-
S Referring to the requirement of an immediate decision
9 The collective-bargammg agreement contains a union-security clause
mittee established by the contract to handle grievances and
disputes arising under the contract. Though present at the
meeting, Thiery stated that he was there as a matter of
courtesy and did not consider that City Roofing was
bound by the contract.
B. Concluding Findings
General Counsel contends that Respondents are part of
a multiemployer bargaining unit, that they did not timely
withdraw from said unit and are thus bound by the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement negotiated by the Association
and the Union. The law is well established in this area. A
multiemployer bargaining unit can only be established by
an unequivocal agreement by the parties to be bound by
group action or by a controlling history of bargaining on
such basis. Once the multiemployer unit is established, the
employer-members and the Union are bound by multiem-
ployer bargaining absent compliance with the rules gov-
erning withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining set forth
in Retail Associates, Inc., 120 NLRB 388, 393-395 (1958).
In Retail Associates the Board stated that while mutual
consent of the unions and employers involved is a basic
element to establishing a multiemployer bargaining unit,
the stability requirement of the Act dictates that reason-
able controls limit the parties as to the time and manner
that withdrawal will be permitted from such a unit. The
Board therefore held that prior to the date set by the con-
tract for modification, or to the agreed-upon date to com-
mence negotiations, withdrawal can only be effected by an
unequivocal written notice expressing a sincere intent to
abandon, with relative permanency, the multiemployer
unit, and to embrace a different course of bargaining on an
individual employer basis. Once actual bargaining negotia-
tions on a multiemployer basis have begun, withdrawal can
be effected only on the basis of "mutual consent" or when
"unusual circumstances" are present.
Here, it is undisputed that each of the Respondents au-
thorized the Association to negotiate on its behalf with the
Union as to "labor rates and working conditions." It is also
undisputed that, prior to the commencement of negotia-
tions, none of the Respondents made any attempt to cancel
such authorization or to otherwise indicate an intent to
abandon the multiemployer unit and bargain on an indi-
vidual basis. There is no contention or evidence that the
element of "mutual consent" or "unusual circumstances"
exist.
City Roofing contends, however, that the issue here is
not one of timely withdrawal. Rather, it contends it never
consented to be bound by multiemployer bargaining. Al-
though the other Respondents are not represented by
counsel and made no formal argument as to the merits of
the complaint, it appears from the testimony of Pyle, Ter-
haar, and Dixon that they are making the same argument.
They all testified essentially the same, as did Thiery, that
by signing the assignment of bargaining rights form, they
understood that they were agreeing not to bargain individ-
ually but rather to have the Association bargain for them.
However, they contend that they did not thereby consent
to be bound by the outcome of such bargaining. City Roof-
ing argues that since the authorization does not specifically
CITY ROOFING CO.
state that- it consents to be bound by any agreement
reached, the element of consent basic to multiemployer
bargaining is missing.
I find no merit in this argument. There are no "magic
words" required to effect a delegation of bargaining au-
thority. In fact, no formal delegation is required. N.L.R.B.
v. Dover Tavern Owners' Association and its 15 Constituent
Members; Idle Hour, Highway Tavern, et al., 412 F.2d 725,
(C.A. 3, 1969). All that is necessary is an unequivocal indi-
cation of intent to be bound by group rather than individu-
al action. Here, not only did Respondents sign written
delegations of authority to the Association's negotiating
committee, but they also participated in Association meet-
ings where various proposals and counterproposals were
considered and voted upon. Terhaar, Dixon, and Thiery
attended most of the Association meetings. Thiery was a
very active participant.10 Dixon was one of the four-person
negotiating committee and he signed an interim agreement.
The fact that Pyle did not attend many of the Association
meetings is irrelevant. He knew that a principal purpose of
the meetings was to make decisions for the guidance of the
Association's negotiation committee. That he chose not to
participate in such decisions does not insulate him from the
obligations flowing therefrom. Thus, it is clear that the As-
sociation was bargaining for its members as a group, and
that Respondents understood, and intended, that they be
part of that group.
A multiemployer group has the same obligation as an
individual employer to clothe its bargaining agent with suf-
ficient authority to culminate an agreement. Negotiators
are presumed to have the authority to reach final agree-
ment unless limitations are specifically stated. Here the
written authorizations contained no limitations and there is
no contention or evidence that the Association communi-
cated any such limitations to the Union. The Union indi-
cated that any agreement reached by its negotiation com-
mittee must be ratified by its membership. That the
Association made no similar limitation is evidenced by the
fact that they reached a tentative agreement subject only to
ratification by the union membership. Once that ratifica-
tion occurred, the agreement became binding.
In view of the history of bargaining on a multiemployer
basis and the delegation of bargaining authorizations ob-
tained by the Association from its employer-members, in-
cluding Respondents, prior to the commencement of the
1974 negotiations in accord with its longstanding practice,
I find that the following unit is appropriate for the purpose
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act:
All journeyman roofers, waterproofers, registered ap-
prentices, and working foremen employed by the em-
ployer-members of the Association's who have author-
ized the Association to bargain with the union on their
behalf.
10 I do not credit Thiery's testimony that he was not an active participant
in matters relating to the union negotiation The minutes of these meetings
indicate otherwise and while it might be plausible that he was erroneously
named as the maker or seconder of a motion once, I find it difficult to
believe that such an error would be made several times particularly as Thi-
789
I further find that the Union represents a majority of the
employees in said unit,11 that Respondents were part of
that unit and did not effect timely withdrawals therefrom
and that any later attempts to withdraw were without the
consent of the Union or the existence of "unusual circum-
stances. "
Accordingly, I find that Respondents were obligated to
honor the 1974-77 collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the Association and the Union. All of the Respon-
dents admit that within the 10(b) period and continuing to
date, they have failed and refused to abide by the provi-
sions of said agreement. However, Pyle Roofing and City
Roofing allege, as an affirmative defense, that further pro-
ceedings against them are barred by Section 10(b) of the
Act inasmuch as they repudiated the contract outside of
the 10(b) period. I find no merit in this contention. It is
true that City Roofing and Pyle Roofing first indicated the
possibility 12 that they would not abide by the contract out-
side the 10(b) period. However, the obligation to honor the
contract is a continuing one, N.L.R.B. v. Joseph T. Strong,
d/b/a Strong Roofing & Insulating Co., 386 F.2d 929 (C.A.
9, 1967), and admittedly, within the Section 10(b) period,
Respondents have failed and refused to abide by the provi-
sions of said collective-bargaining agreement.
Accordingly, I find that the Respondents have each re-
fused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Association and its employer-members, including
Respondents, are employers engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
3. All journeyman roofers, waterproofers, registered ap-
prentices, and working foremen employed by the employ-
er-members of the Association who have authorized the
Association to bargain with the Union on their behalf, in-
cluding Respondents, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein, the Union has been, and
is now, the exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By failing and refusing to accept and to abide by the
provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement between
the Association and the Union effective from July 1,',1974,
through June 30, 1977, Respondents each has engaged in,
ery received copies of all minutes and never sought to correct the alleged
errors.
i i This finding is based on the presumption of continued majority flowing
from the recently expired 1971-74 contract which contained a union securi-
ty clause. That contract is not a part of the record, however, the record
evidence herein indicates that the union security clause of the 1974-77 con-
tract was carried over from the previous contract
12 I credit Robinson's account of his conversations with Thiery and Pyle
outside the 10(b) period and find that they indicated only the possibility of
future noncompliance with the contract and did not flatly repudiate it.
790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act_
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents each has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondents be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and from like or
related unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondents each has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to accept and
abide by the 1974-77 collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the Association and the Union, I shall recommend
that Respondents comply with the terms and conditions of
said agreement , both retroactively to its effective date and
for the balance of its term; including payment to the ap-
propriate source of the health and welfare and dental fund
payments, pension fund payments and vacation fund pay-
ments provided for therein.
I shall also recommend that each of the Respondents
make whole its employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit
for any loss of pay which they may have suffered by reason
of the Respondents' refusal to abide by and give effect to
the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement between the
Union and the Association in a manner consistent with
Board policy set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962).
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law and the entire record in this proceeding, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act as amended, I hereby recommend the following:
ORDER 13
Respondents R. O. Pyle Roofing Co., Pullman, Wash-
ington, City Roofing Co., Robert Dixon, a sole Proprietor,
d/b/a Custom Roofing and Deloris Terhaar and Marvin
Terhaar, d/b/a Inland Empire Roofers , Spokane, Wash-
ington , their officers , agents, successors , and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to accept and abide by the terms and con-
ditions of the agreement negotiated between the Union
and the Association effective from July 1, 1974, through
June 30, 1977.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Forthwith accept and comply with the terms and
conditions of the 1974-77 collective-bargaining agreement
between the Association and the Union as indicated in the
"Remedy" section of this Decision.
(b) Make whole its employees in the bargaining unit
found appropriate herein for any loss of pay which they
may have suffered by reason of the Respondents' refusal to
abide by and give effect to the aforesaid collective-bargain-
ing agreement in the manner and to the extent set forth in
the section herein entitled "Remedy."
(c) Post at their respective, places of business in Spo-
kane, Washington, and Pullman, Washington, copies of the
appropriate one of the attached notices marked "Appendix
A, B, C, and D." 14 Copies of said notices, on forms provid-
ed by the-Regional Director for Region 19, after being duly
signed by Respondents' representative, shall be posted by
Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
13 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
14 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we violated the National Labor Relations
Act, and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend
to carry out the order of the Board.
WE WILL accept and abide by the terms and condi-
tions of the collective-bargaining agreement effective
from July 1, 1974, through June 30, 1977, between In-
land Empire Roofing Contractors Association and
United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp &
Waterproof Workers' Association, Local 189, AFL-
CIO, both retroactively and for the balance of its
term, including making to the appropriate sources the
health and welfare and dental fund payments, the va-
cation fund payments and the pension fund payments
provided for therein.
WE WILL make whole our employees in the bargain-
ing unit for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of our refusal to abide by the terms and condi-
tions of the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement.
CITY ROOFING CO.
CITY ROOFING CO. 791
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence , the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we violated the National Labor Relations
Act, and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend
to carry out the order of the Board.
WE WILL accept and abide by the terms and condi-
tions of the collective -bargaining agreement effective
from July 1, 1974, through June 30, 1977, between In-
land Empire Roofing Contractors Association and
United Slate , Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp &
Waterproof Workers' Association, Local 189, AFL-
CIO, both retroactively and for the balance of its
term, including making to the appropriate sources the
health and welfare and dental fund payments, the va-
cation fund payments and the pension fund payments
provided for therein.
WE WILL make whole our employees in the bargain-
ing unit for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of our refusal to abide by the terms and condi-
tions of the aforesaid collective -bargaining agreement.
R. O. PYLE ROOFING CO.
APPENDIX C
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we violated the National Labor Relations
Act, and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend
to carry out the order of the Board.
WE WILL accept and abide by the terms and condi-
tions of the collective-bargaining agreement effective
from July 1, 1974 , through June 30, 1977, between In-
land Empire Roofing Contractors Association and
United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp &
Waterproof Workers' Association, Local 189, AFL-
CIO, both retroactively and for the balance of its
term, including making to the appropriate sources the
health and welfare and dental fund payments , the va-
cation fund payments and the pension fund payments
provided for therein.
WE WILL make whole our employees in the bargain-
ing unit for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of our refusal to abide by the terms and condi-
tions of the aforesaid collective; bargaining agreement.
ROBERT DIXON, A SOLE PROPRIETOR d/b/a CUSTOM
ROOFING
APPENDIX D
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we violated the National Labor Relations
Act, and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend
to carry out the order of the Board.
WE WILL accept and abide by the terms and condi-
tions of the collective -bargaining agreement effective
from July 1, 1974, through June 30 , 1977, between In-
land Empire Roofing Contractors Association and
United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp &
Waterproof Workers' Association, Local 189, AFL-
CIO, both retroactively and for the balance of its
term, including making to the appropriate sources the
health and welfare and dental fund payments , the va-
cation fund payments , and the pension fund payments
provided for therein.
WE WILL make whole our employees in the bargain-
ing unit for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of our refusal to abide by the terms and condi-
tions of the aforesaid collective -bargaining agreement.
DELORIS TERHAAR AND MARVIN TERHAAR, d/b/a
INLAND EMPIRE ROOFERS