Forest City/ Dillon-Tecon Pacific

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 867 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

FOREST CITY/DILLON-TECON
Forest City/ Dillon-Tecon Pacific and Laborers' Inter-
national Union of North America , Local 10821 and
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local Union 530, Party to the Contract.
Case 21-CA-11726
March 27, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On November 14, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Allen Sinsheimer, Jr., issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, the General
Counsel filed limited exceptions. and the Charging
Party, by letter, joined in, adopted, and supported
General Counsel's limited exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Forest City/Dillon-
Tecon Pacific, Irwindale, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
1 The correct number of this Local appears to be 1082 not 1982
DECISION
STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE
ALLEN SINSHEIMER, JR., Administrative Law Judge: The
above proceeding was heard in Los Angeles, California, on
August 20, 1973, based on a complaint issued June 5,
1973,1 alleging violations of Sections 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of
the Act. The complaint asserts entry into a collective-
bargaining contract by the Respondent and the Carpenters
Union, Party to the Contract, at a time when there was not
a representative complement of employees and further as a
result thereof an illegal union-security requirement. Res-
pondent's defense is that it is in the building and
1 The charge was filed April 17, 1973
2 The first class A plant general was employed February 26 and the first
867
construction industry and under Section 8(f) of the Act the
contract is valid.
The General Counsel and counsel for Respondent
submitted briefs which have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Forest City/Dillon-Teton Pacific, the Respondent,
among other activities , is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of precast concrete building products in Irwindale,
California. During the period from March 1, 1973, through
February 28, 1974, a representative one, Respondent
would have purchased and caused to be delivered to
Irwindale goods, products, and services valued in excess of
$50,000 which would have been shipped from points
outside the State of California directly to Respondent or
directly to firms located in California which in turn would
have shipped them to the Respondent. I find Respondent is
an employer engaged in commerce and in a business
affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. Details
of its business will be set forth more fully hereafter.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Laborers' International Union of North America,
Local 1982, herein called the Laborers' Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act. United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local
Union 530, herein called the Carpenters Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
Commencing about October 1972, Respondent discussed
with the Carpenters Union the possibility of entering into a
contract with said Union. Respondent hired its first
employee at its precast concrete plant at Irwindale in
January 1973 and on February 9 employed seven other
persons. On that date, the Carpenters Union obtained
cards from six of the eight employees in the unit and the
Respondent entered into a recognition agreement with the
Carpenters Union covering the persons employed in its
precast concrete operation at Irwindale. It appears that
about February 19 Respondent and the Carpenters Union
signed a contract effective February 14 covering said
employees. Sometime prior to February 9, the Laborers'
Union indicated to the Respondent that it was interested in
the representation of Respondent's employees. As of
February 9, the Respondent had two classes of employees,
working instructor B and plant general B . As originally
contemplated, these subsequently increased to five categor-
ies of employees: working instructors A and B, plant
general A and B, and probationary employees. All of these
categories were employed by May 1, 1973.2 Respondent's
total complement of employees at Irwindale increased
working instructor A as of March 14.
209 NLRB Nc. 141
868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from 8 on February 9 to 34 as of May 1, and it now has
about 40 or 41 employees at its Irwindale precast plant. It
is accordingly evident that as of February 9, 1973,
Respondent did not have a representative complement of
employees and Respondent does not dispute this.
Respondent's defense is that it is in the building and
construction industry and is accordingly entitled to enter
into the contract that it did even though it did not have a
representative complement of employees at that time.
B. Respondent's Business in Connection with Its
Contention as to the Building and Construction
Industry
Respondent, Foster City/Dillon-Tecon Pacific is en-
gaged in the planning and building of buildings throughout
the United States with operations in California, the
Midwest, and Florida. It has architects who design
structures, which in turn are broken down into shop
drawings from which layout beds and tables are set up by
company production workers and then concrete is poured
to produce the component part. Hence, it has operations
that make precast concrete walls, stairways, etc., and also
core plants that assemble complete modules, for example,
for kitchens or bathrooms with complete kitchens or
bathrooms built in. Respondent either works in conjunc-
tion with a general contractor or sometimes is also the
general contractor engaged in the actual construction of
the buildings, such as hotels or motels, apartment houses,
churches, etc. In California, where it has undertaken four
construction projects, it has utilized a general contractor,
Campbell Construction Company, which Respondent
states is a partner or joint-venturer. Respondent, in the
instant precast plant, makes precast concrete walls, 4-inch
floor slabs, balcony slabs, hard module slabs, elevator
modules and stairs-these consisting of bearing walls, end
walls, stairwell walls, four flat slabs, and balcony slabs.
These are transported by trucking employees of subcon-
tractors (other than employees of the precast plant) to the
site . At the site they are fitted into and become the
structure by other employees of either the Respondent or
Campbell Construction Company (or its subcontractor)
where it is functioning as general contractor.
The process is described as follows: First, a "footer
foundation," by Respondent as the general contractor, is
poured. The walls and steel and concrete are delivered. The
walls, etc., are erected as follows:
Once the horizontal pieces are placed on a two and a
half inch bearing point of that vertical wall, another
wall is set on top of it and concrete, prior to the getting
of the next wall, these voids are filled with concrete at
the job site.
Rebar is run into the poured holes and the size of the
rebar would be based on the design that you are
building and the floors that you are on.
The first floor would have more of a load then the
twelfth floor, so your rod would be larger at the bottom
of the building.
Then we set another wall right on top of this, and the
wall setting on top, of course, the cores will go down
and a portion of the rebar is left up, and a picture of the
rebar extruding out of the wall can be seen in the upper
left-hand picture on page 4.
Other rebar would be inserted in the cores, and once
that is set in place we pour down through there and
monolithically tie the building together.
All the work done by Respondent's employees (here
involved) in the making of the precast products is
performed at the Irwindale plant. The work at thelobsite,
as stated, is performed by union personnel of the general
contractor (or its subcontractor), including electrical
subcontracting, mechanical subcontracting, drywallers,
carpenters, ironworkers, etc.
There is no interchange of employees between Respon-
dent and the general contractor or his subcontractors. No
employees of Respondent at the Irwindale precast plant
have gone on to any of the jobsites in California, nor is it
anticipated that they will except possibly for patching or
repairing of work already completed. Respondent normally
does not do any of the precast work at the site except in a
couple of instances in the past in order to fulfill contracts
elsewhere in the United States and avoid penalties where it
has engaged in more conventional building and construc-
tion methods at a site.
The building, when completed, also includes the modules
made at the core plant, etc. It is essentially the same in
ultimate content as a conventionally built structure but
differently assembled and completed-purportedly more
efficiently than conventional methods of building.
The persons employed by the Respondent at its
Irwindale precast plant were employed through the
Veterans Administration, employment agencies, and by
word of mouth. They were not hired through the Union.
They were trained to perform the various necessary
functions and evidently a period of about 4 months was
sufficient to accomplish this. At the Irwindale plant, so far
as indicated, none of the workers (except for some of
Tecon-Pacific personnel used to assist in training, etc.)
appear to have been skilled at the time of employ, nor was
it required that they possess such skills. The employees
perform work on various operations, depending on the
degree of skill that , they acquire or naturally possess.
C. The Application of Section 8(f)
Respondent contends its entire operations are in the
building and construction industry and accordingly the
contract with the Carpenters Union is a valid prehire
agreement. Section 8(f) of the Act provides in material
part:
It shall not be an unfair labor practice under
subsections (a) and (b) of this section for an employer
engaged primarily in the building and construction
industry to make an agreement covering employees
engaged (or who, upon their employment will be engaged)
in the building and construction industry with a labor
organization of which building and construction employees
are members (not established, maintained, or assisted
by any action defined in section 8(a) of this Act as an
unfair labor practice) because (1) the majority status of
such labor organization has not been established under the
FOREST CITY/DILLON-TECON 869
provisions of section 9 of this Act prior to the making of
such agreement, or (2) such agreement requires as a
condition of employment , membership in such labor
organization after the seventh day following the
beginning of such employment or the effective date of
the agreement, whichever is later , ... Provided further,
That any agreement which would be invalid , but for
clause ( 1) of this subsection , shall not be a bar to a
petition filed pursuant to section 9(c) or (e). [Emphasis
supplied.]
The issue essentially is what was intended by the term
"building and construction industry " as used by Congress
in passing the Labor Management Reporting and Disclo-
sure Act of 1959. The Act does not define this term.
However , there is substantial consideration of the purpose
of the special provision with respect to the prehire
agreement . Senate Report No. 187 on Senate Bill 1555,3
the Kennedy- Ervm bill , whose provisions as to prehire
contracts applicable to the "building and construction
industry" were essentially adopted as part of the Labor
Management Reporting Act of 1959 , states:
In the building and construction industry it is
customary for employers to enter into collective
bargaining agreements for periods of time running into
the future , perhaps 1 year or in many instances as much
as 3 years . Since the vast majority of building projects
are of relatively short duration , such labor agreements
necessarily apply to jobs which have not been started
and may even be contemplated . The practice of signing
such agreements for future employment is not entirely
consistent with Wagner Act rulings of the NLRB that
exclusive bargaining contracts can lawfully be conclud-
ed only if the union makes its agreement after a
representative number of employees have been hired.
One reason for this practice is that it is necessaryfor the
employer to know his labor costs before making the
estimate upon which his bid will be based . A second
reason is that the employer must be able to have available
a supply of skilled craftsmen ready for quick referral. A
substantial majority of the skilled employees in this
industry constitute a pool of such help centered about their
appropriate craft union . If the employer relies upon this
pool of skilled craftsmen , members of the union, there
is no doubt under these circumstances that the union
will in fact represent a majority of the employees
eventually hired. [Emphasis supplied.]
It then refers to a bill which previously passed the Senate
(but not the Congress) and continues:
This bill, as did S. 3974 of the 85th Congress,
contains other provisions which take into account the
occasional nature of employment in the building and
construction employee. It does so by reducing from 30
days to 7 the grace period before which the employee
may be required to join the union. The reduction in this
time allowance reflects the normally short employment
period for construction employees . . . . [Emphasis
supplied.]
The discussion concludes:
The only significant change made in the language of
this section of S. 1555 as compared to the similar
section in S. 3974 would restrict the right to enter into
agreements otherwise authorized by the section, to
labor organizations of which building and construction
employees are members . The purpose of this require-
ment was to make it clear that criminal or "paper
unions" should not avail themselves of the privilege of
entering into such agreements ... .
A further discussion appears at vol. II , p. 1575, of the
Legislative History of the Labor Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959, setting forth an analysis of the
House Committee bill by Representatives Thompson of
New Jersey and Udall of Arizona, in which they state:
Section 702 of the (House) Committee bill follows
the Senate bill in authorizing prehire contracts in the
building and construction industry.
Legislation authorizing prehire agreements in the
construction industry is necessary because the industry
cannot conform to the present law. The NLRB was
written for mines, mills, factories, and similar establish-
ments with a stable workingforce. The employees on the
payroll may choose a bargaining representative which
will thereafter negotiate with the employer an agree-
ment fixing wages, hours , and other terms and
conditions of employment . The act incorporates the
principle of majority rule in choosing a representative.
Therefore, no representative can be chosen and no
contract can be negotiated until the employer has hired
a sufficient number of employees . "NLRB 16th Annual
Report," page 149; Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corp., 122
NLRB No. 148 (1959).
Collective bargaining agreements must be negotiated in
the construction industry before the employees are hired.
First, contractors need to know what the wage rates and
conditions of employment will be before submitting their
bids on construction jobs . Unions often permit contrac-
tors to finish up work already bid at the old wage rates.
Second , many projects involve work of such short
duration that the work would be completed long before a
collective bargaining agreement could be signed, if the
recognition of an exclusive bargaining representative
had to be postponed until the peak number of
employees were at work on the project.
Third, it is manifestly inefficient to negotiate a separate
contract for every project; therefore, the building trades
unions and contractors follow the practice of working
out a scale of wages and other terms of employment
which will be applicable to all projects within a
specified geographical area for a substantial period of
a Vol. 1. Leg Hist of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959, pp 424-425.
870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time. This practice has been encouraged by the Atomic
Energy Commission and other Government agencies.
The result is that employers and unions in the
construction industry have been in continuous viola-
tion of the NLRA ever since 1947. The legal validity of
their collective bargaining agreements will remain
questionable until Congress acts. [Emphasis supplied.]
After discussing the above, Congressmen Thompson and
Udall indicated their objections to then pending Landrum
bill and why the Committee bill, which essentially followed
the Senate bill provisions as to prehire contracts, should be
followed?
Taking the term "building and construction" in a broad
sense, the Respondent could be said to be connected with
and/or a part of the building and construction business.
This is also true of the many operations necessary to
building and construction, including manufacturers of pipe
and plumbing, electrical equipment, steel, lumber, etc., and
even quarries, timber, and forest operations, etc. But the
question is what was intended in the Labor Management
Relations Act of 1959 by the exemption given in Section
8(f) to prehire contracts. The history, as set forth above,
indicates that there were particular purposes involved
which do not appear to relate to or be applicable to the
employees here covered.
The Board has dealt with a number of cases involving
the question of the application of Section 8(f). It is clear
that the statute applies to business enterprises or facilities
selling materials but whose employees are working essen-
tially in construction or related work, such as installing both
hard floor coverings and carpets, etc., in connection therewith
at building sites. See Carpet, Linoleum and Soft Tile Local
Union No. 1247 (Indio Paint and Rug Center), 156 NLRB
951. It also appears that the exemption applies to
companies engaged in the general contracting business
which involves employees working and performing services
at construction sites, such as electrical contractors. See
McLeod v. Local 3, IBEW [Derby Electric Corp.], 57
LRRM 2052 (D.C.N.Y. 1964); sheet metal contractors,
Business Barwise Sheet Metal Company, 199 NLRB 372;
and the floor covering business, Soft Tile Local 1247, supra.
It also applies to a shipbuilder dismantling a missile site
even though such is not its general business but the
shipbuilder does engage in such operations. Zidell Explora-
tions, Inc., 175 NLRB 887. However, it does not apply to
an employer who has only a negligible involvement in the
actual construction in process. See Frick Company, 141
NLRB 1204, 1208.
In the case of N.L.R.B. v. W. L. Rives Company and W-M
Corp., 328 F.2d 464 (C.A. 5, 1964), the court denied an 8(f)
exemption to a company that manufactured and assembled
4 See also p 1082 of vol. Ii of the Legislative History of the Labor
Management and Disclosure Act of 1959
5 This is described as follows.
Rives manufactures and fabricates to order corrosion resistant pipe and
fittings , principally of stainless steel for installation in industrial
machinery. When the product is finally a part of the industrial
machine, it will have gone through three principal phases: (1) the
manufacture or fabricating of the parts (includes pipe, tubing, elbows,
T's and S's), (2) fitting or assembly of these parts together in a shop.
and (3) installation of this `fitted' equipment into the machine at the
of fitted pipe tubing, elbow, etc., for installation in
industrial machinery at a final jobsite in a three-step
process in which there was (1) manufacture, (2) assembly
or fitting and finally (3) installation at the construction
site.5 This case is cited by both the Respondent and
General Counsel as supporting their respective positions.
In that case the court said, "We are of the opinion that
Congress did not intend to include in the exemption those
employers who manufacture and assemble products which
are subsequently installed by others at the construction
site." [Emphasis supplied.]s Respondent relies on the term
"others" to distinguish the situation here on the basis that it
is the overall employer who normally does the installation
itself and that in this instance it is doing so through a
general contractor whom it considers a partner in the
operation. The General Counsel, on the other hand,
apparently interprets this to mean that the actual installa-
tion or work thereon at the site would have to be
performed at least partially by employees in the unit
involved.
The latter construction appears to be supported in part
by the citations previously referred to. I also note in
connection with the court's statement above that it is
accompanied by a footnote wherein the court states: "It is
true that W-M hired employees on a job by job basis;
however, the fact that Rives Company used a continuous
and regular complement of employees to perform fit-up work
indicates that employment in the step (2) process is not
inherently casual and intermittent as is jobsite employment in
the construction industry." [Emphasis supplied.] This seems
to point to the conclusion that the court rejected the claim
for 8(f) exemption both because employment was not at the
jobsite and was not a type of employment that was inherently
casual and intermittent rather than regular . In the instant
case the employment is obviously regular employment and
not at the jobsite.
The latter also appears to be supported by Trial
Examiner Miller's opinion in the Carpet, Linoleum and Soft
Tile Local Union No. 1247 case, supra, wherein he
concluded at 959 with respect to the matter of definition of
the building and construction concept:
By way of summary: within these various definitions,
whether technical, or legal substantial consensus seems
clear. Each formulation with respect to so-called
building and construction concept subsumes the
provision of labor whereby materials and constituent
parts may be combined on the building site to form, make
or build the structure. These various factors, therefore,
define the statutory "building construction industry
which we are concerned. I so find." [Emphasis
supplied.]
final job-site. Rives did not perform step (3) It regularly did steps (1) and
(2). [Emphasis supplied.]
6 1 also note that in Animated Displays Company, 137 NLRB 999,
1020-21, the Board adopted the Trial Examiner's report pro forma, wherein
the following requirements for application of Section 8(f) were set forth:
11 . (1) the agreement must cover employees who are engaged in the building
and construction industry, (2) the agreement must be with a labor
organization of which building and construction employees are members,
and (3) the agreement must be with an employer engaged primarily in the
building and construction industry. " [Emphasis supplied.]
FOREST CITY/DILLON-TECON
There is no question that the intention of the legislature
was to deal with the special problems of obtaining help in
an industry where the workers either did not work for the
same employer and where normally they would work at a
jobsite for a variety of different employers on different
projects of relatively short duration or at least if they
worked for the same employer such would be at a jobsite
on numerous projects , each of relatively short duration. It
was necessary to have a source of help , usually through
trade unions , in order to carry out this objective and as
part thereof for the employer to assure that he could obtain
the necessary help and know the approximate cost thereof.
It is also necessary that an employer be able to obtain help
through specified sources so as to complete a project within
a specified time . A further valid consideration was that if
the normal representation proceedings applicable to other
industries were followed , a project would be completed
before there would be any representation . It is true that
persons employed in the various contracting operations do
usually maintain regular staffs. However , these are general-
ly skilled persons , as electricians , plumbers, sheet metal
workers, carpenters , carpet layers, and so forth, and in
addition they work on a number of different projects and at
the jobsite or the building site in order to complete their
functions. In the instant case the employees are neither
skilled, nor craftsmen , nor is their work limited to specific
projects , nor do they perform any work at jobsites.
Furthermore , if Respondent's argument were carried out
to its logical extreme , it could be fairly urged that a quarry,
lumber mill , or even the forest where lumber is obtained,
provided such went into a building project and was the sole
business of the employer, was part of the building and
construction industry so as to qualify it for an exemption
under Section 8(f). It appears , supra,? that the manufacture
and assembly of pipe is not considered building and
construction work until installed and presumably the same
would apply to lumber, etc.
Respondent contends that its precast operations are
much more than pipe or lumber , etc.-that it is constructing
a substantial pare of a building, such as a wall, etc. It argues
if this were done in a more conventional way by persons
employed at the site instead of at another location , Section
8(f) would clearly apply to such employees . Respondent
contends the result is the same so why treat these
employees differently. The argument has a certain persua-
siveness but I do not find it convincing. The same results
can be achieved in many ways. Arithmetic can be
performed manually, by tables, slide rule, and by comput-
er. Results may be the same but the processes and time
required certainly differ. People have travelled between
New York and California by covered wagon , boat , train,
automobile and by airplane-all means of transportation-
-generally people have reached their destination but what
a difference in getting there! Similarly, transportation laws,
such as speed limits applicable to automobiles , are not
relevant to airplanes . What appears to be involved here is a
contention that a law directed to one type of employment
7 See .NL RB v Rives, supra
8 I have noted that at the time Respondent also had an ostensible claim
from the Charging Union for representation but find it unnecessary to
871
should be applied to one wholly different and certainly not
intended to be covered thereby.
I am accordingly concluding that whatever the Respon-
dent Employer's overall operations may be deemed to be,
it is not engaged in the building and construction industry,
in the sense used in Section 8(f) at its precast plant, but
rather is there engaged in manufacturing as such term is
ordinarily defined and the employees at the precast plant are
not employees in the building and construction industry
but are manufacturing employees. I accordingly find that
Section 8(f) is not applicable. I find from the facts set forth,
supra, that the Respondent did not have a normal
complement of employment on February 9 when it
prematurely entered into the contract with the Carpenters
Union, neither having an adequate number of employees
nor a majority of the classifications ultimately utilized. I
accordingly find that by entering into such contract
(containing a union-security clause) at that time,8 Respon-
dent violated Sections 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act .9 I
shall accordingly recommend an appropriate remedy.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent described 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.
V. THE REMEDY
As I have found that the Respondent unlawfully assisted
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local Union 530, the effect of this interference and the
Respondent's continued recognition of said Union as the
bargaining representative of its employees constitute a
continuing obstacle to the free exercise by its employees of
their right to self-organization and to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing. I shall,
therefore, order that the Respondent withdraw and
withhold recognition from said Union and refrain from
dealing with it at its Irwindale precast plant until it shall
have been certified by the Board as the representative of
the Respondent's Irwindale precast plant employees.
Further, as I have found that the Respondent unlawfully
entered into a contract with said Union effective February
14, 1973, I shall recommend an order that it cease giving
effect to the contract as well as superseding agreements,
renewals, extensions, or modifications until the Union has
been certified by the Board as the representative of the
employees covered by the agreement. Nothing in said
order should be construed, however, to require the
Respondent to vary those wages, hours, and other
substantive features of its relationship with the employees
themselves which have been established in the performance
of the contract.
determine whether such would have been sufficient to invoke the Midwest
Piping doctrine (63 NLRB 1060) or not
9 See Cowles Communication Inc., 170 NLRB 1596, 1610 and cases cited
872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire
record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Forest City/Dillon-Tecon Pacific is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local Union 530, and Laborers' International
Union of North America, Local 1082, are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of the Act.
3. By prematurely recognizing the Carpenters Union as
the bargaining representative of all its employees, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
4. By entering into a contract containing a union-
security provision with the Carpenters Union when that
Union did not lawfully represent its employees, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2), (3), and (1) of the Act.
5. The unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 10
Respondent, Forest City/Dillon-Tecon Pacific, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Recognizing United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, Local Union 530, as the exclusive
representative of Respondent's employees at its Irwindale,
California, plant for the purposes of collective bargaining,
unless and until that labor organization has been certified
as such by the National Labor Relations Board.
(b) Giving effect to its agreement with the Carpenters
Union, effective February 14, 1973, or to any extension,
renewal, or modification, or supplement, or any supersed-
ing agreement, unless and until said Union has been
certified by the National Labor Relations Board; but
nothing in this Order shall be construed as requiring the
Respondent to vary or abandon the wages, hours,
seniority, or other substantive features of any such
agreement.
(c) Continuing to deduct union membership dues or fees
pursuant to checkoff authorizations executed by individual
employees prior to the date of compliance with this Order.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the
Carpenters Union, as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of its employees at its Irwindale, California, plant
unless and until that labor organization has been certified
as such representative by the National Labor Relations
Board.
(b) Post at its place of business at Irwindale, California,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.""
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 21, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places , including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
10 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.
11 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT recognize United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union 530,
as the bargaining representative of our employees at
our Irwindale, California plant for the purposes of
collective bargaining, unless and until that labor
organization has been certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of our employees in an appropriate unit.
WE WILL NOT give effect to our bargaining agree-
ment with the Carpenters Union, effective February 14,
1973, or to any extension, renewal, or modification, or
supplement , or any superseding agreement until that
labor organization has been certified by the National
Labor Relations Board . However, we are not required
to vary or change wages, hours, seniority, or other
substantive features of any such agreement.
WE WILL NOT continue to deduct union membership
dues for the Carpenters Union under checkoff authori-
zations our employees may have signed.
FOREST CITY/DILLON-
TECON PACIFIC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
Eastern Columbia Building, 849 South Broadway, Los
Angeles, California 90014, Telephone 213-688-5200.