District 19, United Mine Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 4, 1966

160 N.L.R.B. 1582 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the
date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith 17
17In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board this provision
shall be modified to read "Notity the aforesnui Regional Directoi, in writing within 10
days from the date of this Order, what Steps Respondent has taken to comply hsrewitb
APPENDIX
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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that-
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in any union by laying oft, discharg-
ing, or refusing to reinstate any employee or by discriminating against any
employee in any other manner in regard to his hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, coerce, or
restrain employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to join
or assist any union, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, or to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer to John W. Charles, immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority
or othei rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings
he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against him.
FURNITURE DESIGNS, INC,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representatiie) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify John W. Charles if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and 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, 6617
Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002, Telephone
228-0611.
District 19, United Mine Workers of America (Seagraves Coal
Company) and Southern Labor Union, Local 207
Local 6074, United Mine Workers of America (Seagraves Coal
Company) and Southern Labor Union, Local 207. Cases 9-CP-
47-7 and d. Outo,ei 4, 1,966
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 27, 1966, Trial Examiner William W. Kapell issued his
Decision in the aboti e-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
160 NLRB No. 124.
DISTRICT 19, UNITED MINE WORKERS 1583
ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, 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 a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
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 brief, and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the fact that employee Met-
calfe was a part-time guard tainted neither the Employer's recog-
nition of Local 207 nor the contract with Local 207, but we do so for
the following reasons.
First, it is clear, and contrary to Respondent's contention, Met-
calfe's guard duties did not make him a managerial employee.
Obviously, his guard duties did not include the authority to formulate
and effectuate management policies. See Pacific Laundry Dry Clean-
ing Corporation, 75 NLRB 321, footnote 4; Swift el Company, 129
NLRB 1391, 1393; Eastern Camera and Photo Corp., 140 NLRB 569,
571. Secondly, this record is devoid of any evidence indicating that
the Southern Labor Union and its Local 207 are not bona fide labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, or
indicating that there was collusion between the Employer and Local
207 in the latter's obtaining a majority status. To the contrary, the
record shows that Metcalfe, who in addition to his 30-minutes-a-day
stint as a guard worked a regular 8-hour shift as a production
employee, and other employees secured, without any aid or assistance
from the Employer, signed SLU authorization cards from 35 of the
42 employees. In these circumstances, we conclude, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the Employer lawfully recognized Local 207, that the
3-year contract executed in August 1965 with Local 207 was a valid
one and one which would serve as a bar to an election, and, thus,
a question concerning representation could not appropriately be
raised. Accordingly, by their picketing of the Employer for the pro-
scribed objects of recognition and bargaining, Respondents violated
Section 8(b) (7) (A) of the Act.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
1584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASES
Cases 9-CP-47-1 and 9-CP-47-2, proceedings under Section 10(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, were heard
before Trial Examiner William W. Kapell in Harlan, Kentucky, on April 12, 1966,
with all parties participating pursuant to due notice on a consolidated complaint,'
issued by the Regional Director of Region 9 of the National Labor Relations Board,
hereinafter called the Board, alleging violations of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act
by District 19, United Mine Workers of America and Local 6074, United Mine
Workers of America, hereinafter jointly referred to as Respondents.
The consolidated complaint, in substance, alleges that, although Seagraves Coal
Company, hereinafter called Seagraves, had lawfully recognized the Charging Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in an appropriate unit
and entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with said Union, Respondents
picketed its coal mining operations, an object thereof being to force or require Sea-
graves to recognize and bargain with Respondents as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentatives of its employees or to force or require said employees to accept Respond-
ents as their collective-bargaining representatives. In their duly filed answer
Respondents, in substance, deny the commission of the alleged unfair labor prac-
tices and the status of the Charging Union as a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. All parties were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs.
General Counsel and Respondents filed briefs which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the cases and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
The complaint alleges in paragraph 2(a) that, at all times material herein, Sea-
graves was a partnership engaged in mining of coal at and near Highsplint,
Kentucky, with an annual direct outflow of coal valued in excess of $50,000 to
points outside the State of Kentucky. Respondents in their answer deny having
sufficient information to determine the truthfulness of said allegation, and demand
proof thereof. During the hearing, it was established that the Company involved
herein as the operator of the coal mine is, and since 1961 has been, a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Kentucky, and was conceded by Respond-
ents to have an annual direct outflow of coal valued in excess of $50,000 to points
outside the State of Kentucky. General Counsel thereupon moved to amend the
complaint to allege that Seagraves has been a Kentucky corporation under the
name of Seagraves Coal Company, Inc., at all times material herein with the direct
outflow and inflow of products in the amounts attributed to Seagraves as a partner-
ship. At the hearing Respondents opposed the motion on jurisdictional grounds and
ruling was reserved. In their brief, Respondents also contend that the Board's Rules
require the filing of a new charge "setting forth the employer as sought to be
changed by the [proposed] amendment," which, in turn, would then authorize the
issuance of a new complaint to effect the change in the name of the employer. I
find no merit in this contention. A charge is not a pleading and merely served to
initiate a Board investigation to determine whether a complaint shall be issued. The
only requirement is that there be "some relationship between allegations in the
complaint and the language of the charge." Texas Industries, 139 NLRB 365.
General Counsel's motion to amend the complaint is hereby granted. The Board's
jurisdiction over Respondents was properly obtained through service of the com-
plaint upon them. The interstate commerce which has allegedly been interfered
with whether that of a partnership or a corporation concededly meets the Board's
standards 2 upon which to predicate jurisdiction. In these circumstances the appli-
cable criterion in determining the Board's jurisdiction is the effect on commerce of
the business operations involved. Furthermore, Seagraves, which is neither a Charg-
ing Party nor a Respondent, raised no question with respect to the Board's jurisdic-
tion over it as a corporation, and, in fact, joined in General Counsel's motion.
1 Based on charges filed in the respective cases herein on January 5, 1966, by Southern
Labor Union Local 207, hereinafter referred to as the Charging Union. Said cases were
consolidated for hearing by order of the Regional Director of Region 9.
2 Siemon.s Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81.
DISTRICT 19, UNITED MINE WORKERS 1585
Accordingly, I conclude that Seagraves is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act, and that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
In their answer, Respondents denied that the Charging Union is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of the Act. Noah Harris, who identified himself as
second vice president of Southern Labor Union, testified that the Charging Union
was organized and exists for the purpose of representing employees in their deal-
ings with employers concerning rates of pay, hours of employment, and conditions
of work, and in that capacity represents the employees of Seagraves. No persuasive
evidence was presented by Respondents to repute that testimony. Accordingly, con-
trary to Respondents' contention, I find that the Charging Union at all times
material herein was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. See Edward
Fields, Incorporated, 141 NLRB 1182, 1184.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Seagraves had recognized and was under contract with the United Mine Workers
until May 1964, when the contract was terminated by the president of District 19.
The parties then met on a few occasions and attempted unsuccessfully to negotiate
a new agreement, but finally gave up by mutual agreement. Since July 13, 1964,
Seagraves has been picketed by Respondent Local 6074, which is still on strike. The
evidence concerning the picketing is not in dispute. A sign about 3 by 3 feet has
been affixed to a pole at the entrance to the mine reading as follows:
LOCAL UNION 6074
HIGHSPLINT
NO CONTRACT-NO WORK
IN YOUR HEART YOU KNOW
WE'RE RIGHT
UNITED WE STAND
DIVIDED WE FALL
UMWA
The pickets have a bench near the sign where they usually sit. Wash Hall, field
representative of Respondent District 19, Frank Allen, financial secretary of
Respondent Local 6047, and Robert Harris, president of said local3 have been
frequently, almost daily, observed at the picketed location. Hall was also observed
gesturing to pickets and telling them what to do and what not to do .4 On June 10,
1965,5 the Board dismissed a representation petition filed by United Mine Workers
in Cases 9-RC-6003 and 9-RC-6101 involving Seagraves and other coal mines
because the bargaining unit sought was found to be inappropriate.
B. The facts
In the early part of August, Noah Harris was contacted by Heibert Metcalfe, an
employee at Seagraves, to discuss organizing Seagraves' employees. As a result of
their discussion Harris gave Metcalfe and Pleas Brock, another employee at Sea-
graves, authorization cards and instructed them to get a majority of the employees
signed up. On August 13 a union meeting was held at the home of Pleas Brock.
By that time 35 authorization cards had been obtained from Seagraves' employees
in a unit containing 43 employees. Local Union 207 was thereupon set up and
Metcalfe, Brock, and Jackie Robbins were elected president, vice president, and
secretary and treasurer, respectively, and they were also chosen as a committee to
bargain with Seagraves on behalf of the employees. Later that day the committee
and Noah Harris contacted Ed Taylor, the president of Seagraves, and requested
8 The designated positions of these officers were admitted by Respondents.
4 Frank Allen admitted participating in the picketing , and also stated that Hall partici-
pated in the picketing to the extent of checking the picket line to see whether it complied
with orders of the Harlan ['Kentucky] Circuit Court. Orders of this court (Respondents'
Exhibit 1) dated July 31 and August 3, 1964 , respectively, permit picketing by Respond-
ents at Seagraves and other mines, which conformed to certain requirements.
5 AR dates hereinafter refer to the year 1965 unless noted otherwise.
257--551-67-vol. 160-101
1 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recognition of Local 207 as the collective-bargaining representative of the Com-
pany's employees, and handed him the signed union authorization cards for his
inspection. Taylor turned the cards over to William T. Scruggs, Seagraves' sec-
retary, who acknowledged the authenticity of the cards after comparing the sig-
natures on the cards with company records containing the signatures of the
employees who purportedly signed cards. Taylor, thereupon, referred the bar-
gaining committee to Logan Patterson and a Mr. McDowell, who would repre-
sent the Company in negotiating a collective-bargaining agreement with Local
207. On August 18, the bargaining committee, Harris and Bill Bell, first vice
president of the International, met with McDowell, Taylor, Scruggs, and other
representatives of Seagraves and negotiated a contract subject to ratification by
the union membership covering the terms and conditions of employment for a
3-year period, effective August 18. On August 20, at a union meeting, the mem-
bers voted to accept the contract.
The record also discloses that during September, Jackie Robbins met Frank
Allen in a supermarket and in the ensuing conversation with him was told "we
know you are still with us and sooner or later you will be back."
The Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends that Respondents' picketing violated Section 8(bf
(7) (A) of the Act. Under this provision, it is an unfair labor practice for a
union or its agents:
to picket or cause to be picketed, . . . any employer where an object thereof
to forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor
organization as the representative of his employees, or forcing or requiring
the employees of an employer to accept or select such labor organization as
their collective-bargaining representative, unless such labor organization is
currently certified as the representative of such employees:
(A) where the employer has lawfully recognized in accordance with
this Act any other labor organization and a question concerning repre-
sentation may not appropriately be raised under section 9(c) of this Act.
The General Counsel asserts that Respondent's picketing with a sign contain-
ing language, in part, stating, "No Contract-No Work," establishes in the con-
text of the circumstances herein that an object of the picketing was to obtain
recognition as a collective-bargaining representative from Seagraves at a time
when Seagraves was under a lawfully executed collective-bargaining agreement
with the Charging Union; and that no question concerning representation herein
may appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act by Respondents.
Respondents contend that Respondent Local 6074's picketing was permissive
as free speech; that it was protected by the orders issued by the Harlan Circuit
Court; and that Respondent District 19 did not engage in any picketing and only
supervised the picketing of Local 6074 to insure that it conformed to the require-
ments of the State court orders. Respondents also assert that Seagraves could not
lawfully recognize the Charging Union because Metcalfe, who was its president
and had a leading part in negotiating their contract, was also employed as a
guard by Seagraves and therefore was ineligible to be a member of the appro-
priate bargaining unit.6
Conclusions
I find no merit in Respondent's contention that District 19 was not engaged in
the picketing admittedly carried on by Local 6074. The credited evidence estab-
lishes that Hall, field representative of District 19, actively participated in the
picketing. Furthermore, it is admitted that he supervised the picketing, albeit to
insure its compliance with the State court orders. In these circumstances it is
obvious that District 19 engaged in the picketing and bears responsibility for it.
United Mine Workers of America, 145 NLRB 247, 253. Whether or not such
picketing was protected raises other issues discussed hereinafter.
6 The record shows that Metcalfe has been employed by Seagraves since December 7,
1964, as a tipple worker on a regular 8-hour shift. Since some shooting occurred in the
area of the mine in connection with the pending labor dispute, Metcalfe has also been
working 30 minutes overtime at the end of his shift doing guard duty for which he has
been paid overtime rates.
DISTRICT 19, UNITED MINE WORKERS 1587
Respondents' reliance on the State court orders to protect their picketing is mis-
placed. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Board has exclusive juris-
diction of labor disputes insofar as they are subject to Section 7 or 8 of the Act.
Thus, in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garman, 359 U.S. 236, 245, the
Court stated, "when an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the Act, the
States as well as the federal courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the
National Labor Relations Board if the danger of state interference with national
policy is to be adverted. . . . If the Board decides, subject to appropriate federal
judicial review, that conduct is protected by § 7, or prohibited by § 8, then the
matter is at an end, and the States are ousted of all jurisdiction." I accordingly con-
clude that the State court orders are not binding on the Board, and afford no pro-
tection to Respondents' picketing insofar as the Board is concerned.
I also find no substance in Respondents' claim that Seagraves cannot lawfully
recognize the Charging Union. The evidence establishes that Seagraves recognized
this Union upon the basis of union authorization cards signed by a majority of the
employees in an approprite unit, and thereafter entered into a collective-bargaining
agreement with it. No substantial evidence was presented to refute its valid majority
status at the time it was recognized or thereafter. Furthermore, the contract entered
into between Seagraves and the Charging Union appears valid on its face as a
collective-bargaining agreement between a labor organization and an employer, and
no persuasive evidence was introduced to establish collusion in its execution, or
other defect vitiating its validity. Nor can it be validly asserted, as contended by
Respondents, that Metcalfe's overtime work as a guard precluded him from partici-
pating in the solicitation of union authorization cards and bargaining activities of
the Charging Union, and thereby somehow made its recognition and contract unlaw-
ful. While it appears that Metcalfe performed dual functions for Seagraves, his pri-
mary duties involved his work on the tipple where he spent over 90 percent of his
time regularly each week doing the same work as other employees in the unit. I
find that he has sufficient interest in the terms and conditions of employment within
the unit to entitle him to take part in the determination of a collective-bargaining
representative. See The Ocala Star Banner, 97 NLRB 384; Berea Publishing Com-
pany, 140 NLRB 516, 519. 1, accordingly, conclude that his guard duties had no
unlawful effect on the recognition of the Charging Union or its collective-bargaining
contract, and that the recognition of the Charging Union and its collective-bargaining
agreement bar the raising of any question concerning representation under Section
9(c) of the Act?
Respondents' picketing is violative of the Act if it can be established that an
object thereof was proscribed by Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act. The fact that the
picket signs stated, in part, "NO CONTRACT-NO WORK," clearly shows that
the picketing had for an object Seagraves' recognition of and bargaining with
Respondents. As the Board stated in Local Union 429, IBEW (Sam Melson), 138
NLRB 460; "We have held . . . that a statement on a picket sign that an employer
does not have a contract with a labor organization clearly implies a recognitional
and bargaining object." 4 (Citations omitted.) Other evidence tending to support a
finding of the proscribed object in Respondents' picketing include Respondents' pre-
picketing conduct in attempting unsuccessfully to negotiate a renewal contract with
Seagraves, and Allen's statement to Robbins in their conversation in September, in
which Allen impliedly indicated that Respondents were anticipating his return to the
"fold." Nor is it material that the picketing began prior to the recognition of the
Charging Union, and may at that time have been lawful.8
Even assuming, as contended by Respondents that the picketing was also for
informational purposes, that may not be raised as a defense to a Section 8(b) (7) (A)
violation. The Board has held that such picketing would be permissible only where
the provisions of Section 8(b)(7)(C) were applicable. See Local 3, IBEW (Jack
Picoult), 144 NLRB 5, 8, enfd. 339 F.2d 600 (C.A. 2); International Hod Carriers'
Building and Common Laborers' Union (C.A. Blinne Construction Company), 135
NLRB 1153; Local 3, IBEW (Darby Electric Corporation), 153 NLRB 717.
7 In view of the Board 's holding in International Hod Carriers' Building and Common
Laborers' Union ( Roman Stone Construction Company), 153 NLRB 059, footnote 1. it
would appear that the majority status of the Charging Union could not be placed in issue
or litigated herein. See also Shamrock Dairy, Inc, 119 NLRB 998, 1001. It also is signifi-
cant to note that the representation petition filed by Respondents was dismissed by the
Board on June 10 because the unit sought was found to be inappropriate.
8 Cf Dayton Typographical Union No. 57 v. N L R.B , 326 F 2d 634, 649 (C.A.D.C.).
1588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For all the reasons stated above, I find that Respondents picketed Seagraves for
recognition and a collective -bargaining contract in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(A)
of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Seagraves set forth in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following conclusions of law:
1. Seagraves is engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Southern Labor Union Local 207; District 19, United Mine Workers of
America; and Local 6074, United Mine Workers of America, are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Sections 2(5) and 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act.
3. By picketing Seagraves Coal Company, Inc., at Highsplint, Kentucky, with an
object of forcing or requiring Seagraves to recognize and bargain with them as the
collective-bargaining representative of its employees, and with a further object of
forcing or requiring Seagraves' employees to accept or select Respondents as their
collective-bargaining representative, at a time when Respondents were not certified
as such representatives and Seagraves had lawfully recognized Southern Labor Union
Local 207 as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees, and a ques-
tion concerning representation could not be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act,
Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b) (7) (A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm-
ative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that Respondents District 19,
United Mine Workers of America, and Local 6074, United Mine Workers of
America, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from picketing or causing to be picketed or threatening to
picket Seagraves Coal Company, Inc., under conditions prohibited by Section
8(b) (7) of the Act, where an object thereof is forcing or requiring such employer
to recognize or bargain with them as the collective-bargaining representatives of its
employees, or forcing or requiring said employees to select or accept Respondents
as their collective-bargaining representatives.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places at their business offices, meeting halls, and all
places where notice to their members are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of the said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 9, after being signed by duly authorized representa-
tives of the Respondents, shall be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "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."
LOCAL NO. 7463, UNITED MINE WORKERS 1589
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days, thereafter in such con-
spicuous places. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that the
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Forthwith mail to the aforesaid Regional Director for Region 9, signed
copies of said notices for posting by Seagraves Coal Company, Inc., if it so chooses,
in places where notices to its employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondents have taken to comply
herewith.1o
10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF DISTRICT 19, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
AND LOCAL 6074, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES
OF SEAGRAVES COAL COMPANY, INC.
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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT under conditions prohibited by Section 8(b)(7) of the Act,
picket, or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket, Seagraves Coal Company,
Inc., where an object thereof is to force or require Seagraves Coal Company,
Inc., to recognize or bargain with us as the representatives of its employees, or
to force or require the employees of Seagraves Coal Company, Inc., to accept
or select us as their collective-bargaining representative.
DISTRICT 19, UNITED MINEWORKERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
LOCAL 6074, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(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.
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room
2023 Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone
684-3627.
Local No. 7463 , United Mine Workers of America (Harlan Fuel
Company ) and Southern Labor Union Local No. 206
District 19, United Mine Workers of America ( Harlan Fuel Com-
pany) and Southern Labor Union Local No. 206 . Cases 9-CP-
40-1 and 2. October 4, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 1, 1966, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his Decision
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had
engaged in and Were engaging in certain unfair labor practices within
160 NLRB No. 129.