602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Salesdrivers and
Helpers' Union Local No. 179, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America and Walter
Sally d/b/a Walter and Sons and Crown Trygg,
Inc., Party to the Contract and Mid -America
Regional Bargaining Association , Party to the
Contract and General Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Salesdrivers and Helpers ' Union Local No. 301,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Party to the Contract and General Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Salesdrivers and Helpers' Union
Local No. 330, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , Party to the Contract and
General Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Salesdrivers and
Helpers' Union Local No. 423, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen, and Helpers of America, Party to the
Contract and General Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Salesdrivers and Helpers ' Union Local No. 673,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen , and Helpers of America,
Party to the Contract and Truck Drivers, Oil
Drivers, Filling Station and Platform Workers'
Union Local No. 705, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Party to the Contract
and Excavating, Grading, Asphalt, Private Scav-
engers and Automobile Salesroom and Garage
Attendants' Union Local No. 731, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , Party to the
Contract and Building Material, Lumber, Box
Shaving, Roofing and Insulating Chauffeurs,
Teamsters , Warehousemen and Helpers' Union
Local No. 786, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Party to the Contract.
Case 13-CE-79
20 November 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 9 July 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Nancy M. Sherman issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in
answer to the Respondent's exceptions and in sup-
port of the judge's decision.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, I and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, General
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Salesdrivers and Helpers'
Union Local No. 179, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Joliet, Illinois, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Order.
i We agree with the judge that the Respondent violated Sec 8(e) of
the Act by entering into and maintaining in effect the self-help provision
of sec. 3 3 of its contract, which authorized it to strike in support of the
mechanism by which it enforced the subcontracting clause (sec 3.1) of
that agreement In doing so, we find the judge's construction of the rele-
vant sections of the contract to be reasonable and persuasive . In this
regard, we also note that, although the Respondent was given full oppor-
tunity to do so, it chose not to present any evidence in support of its
claim that, contrary to the judge's interpretation, the "right to strike" lan-
guage was not in fact applicable to the subcontracting clause.
Alan M. Kaplan, Esq., and Robert C. Bell, Jr., Esq., for
the General Counsel
Roger N. Gold, Esq., of Chicago, Illinois, for Respondent
Local No. 179.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
NANCY M. SHERMAN, Administrative Law Judge. The
charge in this case was filed on 15 August 1983 by
Walter Sally d/b/a Walter and Sons (Walter). The com-
plaint was issued on 23 September 1983, and amended on
31 October 1983. So far as material at this point in the
proceedings, and the complaint alleges that Respondent
General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Salesdrivers and Helpers'
Union Local No. 179, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousmen and Helpers of
America (Local 179) violated Section 8(e) of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Act (the Act) by entering into and
maintaining in effect an agreement with the Mid-Amer-
ica Regional Bargaining Association (MARBA). i
On 20 January 1984 the General Counsel, Walter, and
Local 179 jointly filed a motion to transfer proceedings
to the Board in which they agreed that a stipulation of
facts entered into by the parties about 23 November
1983, together with the formal papers, constituted the
entire record in the case and that no oral testimony was
necessary or desired by the parties. The parties also
agreed to waive a hearing before an administrative law
judge, the making of findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the issuance of an administrative law judge's de-
cision in a desire to submit the case directly to the Board
for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an Order.
i Other allegations in the complaint were the subject of a November
1983 settlement agreement between the General Counsel and Local 179,
into which Walter declined to enter
277 NLRB No. 74
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 179 (WALTER & SONS)
The 20 January 1984 motion included a motion request-
ing the Board to grant leave to the following parties to
the collective -bargaining agreement at issue herein to in-
tervene in this proceeding : MARBA ; Crown Trygg, Inc.
(Crown); Teamsters and Helpers Lake and McHenry
Counties Illinois Union Local No. 301 , International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
and Helpers of America (Local 301); General Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Salesdrivers and Helpers ' Union Local No.
330, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Local 330);
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Salescrivers and Helpers' Union
Local No. 423 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen , and Helpers of America
(Local 423 ); Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers, Filling Station
and Platform Workers' Union Local No. 705, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehou-
semen and Helpers of America (Local 705); and Excavat-
ing, Grading , Asphalt, Private Scavengers and Automo-
bile Salesroom and Garage Attendants Union Local No.
731, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Local 731). The
20 January 1984 motion further included a request that if
the Board granted the motion to transfer the proceed-
ings, a date be set for the filing of briefs . On 3 April 1984
the Board granted the motion to transfer, gave leave to
intervene to those parties to the collective -bargaining
agreement whose intervention had been requested in the
motion , and set a date for the filing of briefs . About 8
May 1984 briefs to the Board were filed by the General
Counsel and by Respondent.
On 4 February 1985 the Board issued an Order which
reads in part:
Upon further consideration of the matter in light
of the parties ' briefs, the Board is now of the opin-
ion that the parties ' stipulation of facts was improvi-
dently accepted , as the briefs raise issues of fact and
law which can best be resolved at a hearing before
an administrative law judge.
IT IS ORDERED that the Board's Order of 3 April
1984 is revoked to the extent that it grants the par-
ties' motion to transfer the proceedings to the board
for decision and the parties' Stipulation of Facts is
rejected.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is re-
manded to the Regional Director for Region 13 for
the purpose of arranging a hearing before an admin-
istrative law judge and that the Regional Director is
authorized to issue notice thereof.
The Board specifically stated , however, that it was not
revoking its grant of the parties' motion to allow certain
parties to the contract leave to intervene.
'Thereafter , on 20 February 1985, the Acting Regional
Director for Region 13 issued an order scheduling the
hearing , for 29 May 1985. On 14 May 1985 I was duly
designated as the administrative law judge in that case.
On various dates between 24 and 29 May 1985 , a stipula-
tion was executed by the General Counsel, Walter, and
respective counsel for Respondent Local 179, Crown,
MARBA, and Locals 301, 330, 423, 705, and 731. This
603
stipulation stated, inter alia, that none of such parties de-
sired to present additional evidence, that such parties
waived a hearing before an administrative law judge, and
that they agreed that the matter could be submitted to an
administrative law judge for findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law . Further, the stipulation requested the ad-
ministrative law judge to set a time for the filing of
briefs . By order dated 4 June 1985 , I specifically stated
that in writing my decision , I intended to consider the
briefs filed in 1984 by Respondent and by the General
Counsel . An excellent brief filed by the General Counsel
was the only brief filed pursuant to this order . Respond-
ent's counsel has advised me that he relies on the brief he
submitted to the Board in 1984.
On the entire record , and after due consideration of
the brief filed by Respondent and the briefs filed by the
General Counsel, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
MARBA is an organization which is composed of em-
ployers engaged in various construction -related indus-
tries, and which exists for the purpose , inter alia , of rep-
resenting its employer-members in negotiating and ad-
ministering collective-bargaining agreements with vari-
ous labor organizations , including Respondent Local 179.
At all times material herein , Crown has been an employ-
er-member of the Association. Crown is an Illinois cor-
poration with an office and place of business in Joliet, Il-
linois. Crown is engaged in the business of a general con-
tractor in road construction projects and as a manufac-
turer of asphalt surfacing materials . Walter is a sole pro-
prietorship with an office and place of business in Joliet,
Illinois, where at all times material herein it has engaged
in the transportation of construction materials . During
the calendar year preceding the issuance of the com-
plaint, a representative period, and in the course of Wal-
ter's business operations within Illinois, Walter derived
gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for the transportation
of freight and commodities in interstate commerce pursu-
ant to arrangements with and as agent for various
common carriers , including Crown, each of which oper-
ates between and among various States of the United
States. By virtue of such operations, Walter functions as
an essential link in the transportation of freight and com-
modities in interstate commerce.
Respondent Local 179 is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act.
Local 179 admits , and I find, that Walter and Crown
are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act. Further, I find that assertion of jurisdiction
over this proceeding will effectuate the policies of the
Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Allegedly Unlawful Contract Clauses
At all times material herein, Crown has been a
member of the Chicago Outer Belt Contractors Associa-
tion (COBCA), an association of construction employers,
604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
one of whose functions is to negotiate collective-bargain-
ing agreements for its members. Pursuant to Crown's
membership in COBCA, Crown had delegated to
COBCA the authority to negotiate collective-bargaining
agreements of Crown's behalf with building trades
unions, including Respondent Local 179. At all times ma-
terial herein, COBCA has in turn delegated to MARBA
the authority to negotiate collective-bargaining agree-
ments with construction trades unions, including Re-
spondent Local 179.
At all times material herein, Respondent Local 179 has
been a member of Joint Council 25 (the Joint Council),
with geographic jurisdiction over certain work per-
formed in Will County, Illinois. Locals 301, 330, 423,
673, and 705 are also affiliated with the Joint Council.
About 29 June 1983, MARBA, for and on behalf of itself
and its member employer associations-including
COBCA and its employer members (including Crown)-
and Locals 179, 301, 330, 423, 673, and 705 entered into,
and have since maintained, a collective-bargaining agree-
ment effective as of 1 June 1983 and to expire no earlier
than 31 May 1986.2 For the purposes of the stipulation
only, the parties have agreed to the identity of the em-
ployers of the employees in the contract unit, and that
the unit as so defined is appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act. Subsequent to 1 June 1983, various other em-
ployers have signed the agreement and, as a result, have
been parties thereto within the meaning of its terms.
The collective-bargaining agreement includes clauses
covering conventional aspects of wages, hours, and
working conditions. In addition, the agreement calls for
a union shop, a nonexclusive hiring hall, a time frame for
starting hours, union business representatives' rights to
visit the job "to enforce the provisions of this agree-
ment," and union representatives' right to have access to
"the Employer's establishment" for the purpose of ad-
justing disputes, investigating working conditions, col-
lecting dues, and ascertaining compliance with the agree-
ment, including inspection of employer records which
relate to grievances regarding wages, health and welfare,
or pension contributions. Further, the contract contains
grievance and arbitration provisions, of which the first
sentence states, "All disputes or grievances arising out of
work and operations under this Agreement shall be set-
tled and resolved as provided in this Article except as
otherwise herein provided." Contractual provisions for
the arbitration procedure, which can be invoked "at the
option of the moving party," include, "The arbitrator
shall have no authority to add to, detract from, or in any
way alter the provisions of this Agreement."
In addition, the contract contains the following provi-
sions:
2 Par 4 of the 1983 stipulation states, in effect, that Locals 731 and 786
are also parties to the agreement Moreover, both are named in the cap-
tion as parties to the contract and, as previously noted, the motion for
leave to intervene included Local 731. However, Locals 731 and 786 are
not named in the copy of the agreement appended to the 1984 stipulation,
which further provides, with exceptions not material here, "In the event
that there is or appears to be a conflict with the description of a docu-
ment or its contents as set forth in this Stipulation with the document
itself, the documents attached to this Stipulation speak for themselves and
are controlling as to both description and contents."
Article 3.
Subcontracting
3.1 The Employer agrees that it will not contract
or subcontract work covered by this Agreement to
be done at the construction site to any person, firm
or corporation not a party to this Agreement.
3.2 Any Employer who sublets to or who hires
any other Employer to perform any work or serv-
ices including the spreading on the construction site
or the road bed of any stabilized base material to be
used for subsurface . . . or the stockpiling of such
materials , shall neither sublet nor hire any such Em-
ployers unless the employees of such Employers are
paid an amount equal to the wages and fringe bene-
fits being paid to employees working under this
Agreement.
3.3 In the event a contractor, sub-contractor, or
owner-driver or driver fails to comply with the pro-
visions of this Article, he shall be considered in
direct violation of this Agreement. The Contractor,
Subcontractor, or owner-driver or drivers, shall
within seventy-two (72) hours after receiving
notice, excluding Sundays and Holidays, investigate
and meet with the Union to adjust or comply with
the requirement. If an Agreement or settlement is
not reached, it shall be submitted to the Grievance
and Arbitration procedure of Article VI, provided,
however, that if the Contractor, Subcontractor,
and/or owner-driver or drivers refuses to meet for a
pre job conference on subcontracting, he shall for-
feit all of his rights to the grievance procedure. If
the Contractor, Subcontractor, or owner-driver or
drivers refuses to meet for the pre-job conference,
the Union shall have the right to strike, the provi-
sion of the no strike clause notwithstanding.
The complaint alleges that Local 179 violated Section
8(e) by entering into and maintaining in effect the fore-
going sections 3.1 and 3.3 of the agreement.
The agreement contains the following additional pro-
visions:
Article 4.
Pre-Job Conference
4.1 Before commencing any job, an Employer
shall meet with the Union for a pre-job conference
for the purpose of advising the Union of the Em-
ployer's requirements as to the number of employ-
ees, the probable starting date, duration of the job,
working schedules and other matters affecting em-
ployees. This shall not apply to an Employer per-
manently domiciled within the area of the Local
Union's jurisdiction. All contractors, including all
local contractors, shall provide a list of subcontrac-
tors and owner-driver or drivers to the Local Union
three (3) days prior to commencement of work.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 179 (WALTER & SONS) 605
Article 5.
No Strikes or Lockouts
5.1 In view of the fact that parties have provided
for an orderly procedure for settling differences of
opinions and disputes, the Union agrees that for the
duration of this Agreement, there shall be no strikes
except as otherwise herein provided and the Com-
pany agrees that during the life of this Agreement
there shall be no lockouts. The provisions of this
Article shall not apply to any Company that refuses
to follow the procedures outlined in Article 6 [the
grievance-arbitration provisions].
Article 22.
Protection of Rights
22.1 It shall not be a violation of this Agreement,
and it shall not be cause for discharge or discipli-
nary action in the event an employee refuses to
enter upon any property involved in a lawful pri-
mary labor dispute, or refuses to go through or
work behind any lawful primary picket line, includ-
ing the lawful primary picket line of Unions party
to this Agreement, and including lawful primary
picket lines at the Employer's places of business. In
the application of this Article it is immaterial if the
labor dispute or picketing is primary.
22.2 This Article in its entirety is excluded from
the application of the grievance procedure of this
agreement.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel and Respondent Local 179 ap-
pears to agree that laying to one side the construction in-
dustry proviso to Section 8(e), section 3.1 of the bargain-
ing agreement constitutes a clause forbidden by Section
8(e). Further, the General Counsel and Respondent
Local 179 appear to agree that because Crown is partly
engaged in the construction industry and section 3.1 ap-
plies by its terms only to work "to be done at the con-
struction site," Local 179 is entitled to take advantage of
any protection afforded by the construction industry pro-
viso to Section 8(e). See generally Woelke & Romero
Framing v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645 (1982). In addition, the
General Counsel and Respondent Local 179 agree that
under existing case law, clauses which purport to author-
ize a union to employ economic action to enforce sec-
ondary subcontracting provisions will serve to remove
whatever protections the secondary clause would other-
wise enjoy under the construction industry proviso to
Section 8(e).3
However, the parties differ as to the significance of the
last sentence of section 3.3 of the bargaining agreement,
which provides, "If the Contractor, Subcontractor, or
owner-driver or drivers refuses to meet for the pre job
conference, the Union shall have the right to strike." I
agree with the General Counsel that this constitutes a
self-help provision which, under the class of cases re-
ferred to supra in fn. 3, deprives Local 179 of proviso
protection. The clause granting the right to strike ap-
pears in the same article as the subcontracting provision
and in the same section which sets forth the Union's
remedies for failure to comply with subcontracting limi-
tations. Indeed, although the provision granting the right
to strike obviously applies to a situation where there has
been a refusal to meet for a "pre job conference on sub-
contracting," at least arguably that provision is wholly
inapplicable where there has been a refusal to meet for a
prejob conference regarding other matters; as previously
noted, this strike provision is included in the article
headed "Subcontracting," not in the article headed "Pre-
Job Conference." Moreover, the prejob conference is
calculated to further the union's ability to determine
whether the employer parties are violating the onsite
subcontracting clause (sec. 3.1) by subcontracting work
to anyone who is not a party to the agreement. Thus, the
contract in terms refers to a prejob conference "on sub-
contracting." Moreover, attendance at prejob confer-
ences is not required of "an Employer permanently dom-
iciled within the area of the Local Union's jurisdic-
tion"-that is, a party to the contract4 whose status as
such would likely by known to the Local Union. I note,
moreover, that the "Pre-Job Conference" article requires
all contractors, including all local contractors, to provide
a list of subcontractors and owner-driver or drivers to
the Union 3 days before the commencement of work.
In short, the provision permitting a strike where there
has been a failure to attend a prejob conference permits a
strike in support of the mechanism by which the Union
enforces the subcontracting clause in the bargaining
agreement. Accordingly, that provision constitutes a self-
help provision depriving Local 179 of proviso protec-
tion, even though the Union is not thereby privileged to
strike in immediate support of the subcontracting clause
itself. This result is called for by the cases holding that
proviso protection is lost where the contract authorizes
the union to strike to enforce the time limits of a con-
tractual grievance-arbitration procedure applicable to the
subcontracting clause, 5 or to enforce against a contractor
who is a party to the subcontracting clause a claimed li-
ability thereunder for fringe benefit contributions on
behalf of his subcontractor's employees, 15 or to enforce a
settlement reached or an award issued pursuant to a con-
tractual grievance-arbitration procedure applicable to the
Operating Engineers Local 701 (Pacific Northwest Chapter, Associated
Builders), 239 NLRB 274 (1978), enfd 654 F2d 1301 (9th cir. 1981), re-
manded 456 U.S 645 (1982), enfd on remand 699 F.2d 488 (9th Cir
1983); Operating Engineers Local 12 (Griffith Co.), 243 NLRB 1121, 1124-
112 5 (1979), enfd 660 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied 457 US,
1105 (1982); Carpenters Southern California Conference (D & E Corp.), 243
NLRB 888, 890 (1979)
4 The contract defines "Employer " to mean MARBA, its member as-
sociations and their members, and "any Employer signatory to this
Agreement both present and future "
5 Pacific Northwest Chapter, 239 NLRB at 277-278
5 Carpenters Portland District Council (Associated Builders), 243 NLRB
416, 421 (1979)
606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
subcontracting clause.7 Although the contractual self-
help provisions may also be part of the mechanism for
enforcing contract clauses with no secondary implica-
tions, such a circumstance would not remove the taint of
the self-help provisions from the subcontracting clause,
Los Angeles Building Trades Council (Schriver, Inc.), 239
NLRB 264, 270 (1978), enfd. 635 F.2d 859 (D.C. Cir.
1980), cert. denied 451 U.S. 976 (1981); Carpenters Los
Angeles County District Council (Coast Construction), 242
NLRB 801 (1979), enfd. 709 F.2d 532 (9th Cir. 1983);
McKee, Inc., 254 WLRB at 787-788; Iron Workers Local
272 (SAC Construction), 241 NLRB 438, 441-442 (1979);
see also Teamsters Local 467 (Sullivan & Associates), 265
NLRB 1679 (1982), enfd. 723 F.2d 916 (9th Cir. 1983).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Walter and Crown are employers engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. Local 179 is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By entering into and maintaining in effect the self-
help provisions applicable to section 3.1 of the collective-
bargaining agreement effective between 1 June 1983 and
31 May 1986, Local 179 has violated Section 8(e) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Local 179 has engaged
in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that
it be required to cease and desist therefrom. Because the
record affirmatively shows that various employers who
are not members of MARBA have also signed the 1983-
1986 agreement, the cease-and-desist order will extend to
contracts with any employer over whom the Board
would assert jurisdiction. Milk Drivers & Dairy Employees
Local 537 (Sealtest Foods), 147 NLRB 230 (1964). I shall
further recommend that Respondent be required to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed"
ORDER
The Respondent, General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Sa-
lesdrivers and Helpers' Union Local No. 179, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehous-
men and Helpers of America, Joliet, Illinois, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from entering into or maintaining
the 1983-1986 agreement between it and Mid-America
Regional Bargaining Association, or between the Re-
spondent and any other employer over whom the Board
would assert jurisdiction, to the extent found unlawful
herein by reason of self-enforcement provisions.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its offices, meeting halls, and other places
where it customarily posts notices to members a copy of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 13, after being signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Sign and deliver to the Regional Director sufficient
copies of the notice to be furnished by the Regional Di-
rector for posting by, if willing, Walter Sally d/b/a
Walter and Sons, Mid-America Regional Bargaining As-
sociation, each employer who is covered by the Re-
spondent's 1983-1986 contract with that Association by
reason of that Association's execution of the contract,
each labor organization which is party thereto, and
every other employer party to that contract and over
whom the Board would assert jurisdiction.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
9 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al 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
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE `
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT enter into , maintain, or give effect to
the 1983-1986 agreement between us and the Mid-Amer-
ica Regional Bargaining Association, or between us and
any other employer over whom the Board would assert
jurisdiction, to the extent found unlawful by reason of
self-enforcement provisions.
° Pacific Northwest Chapter, 239 NLRB at 277-278; Teamsters Local 89
(McKee, Inc.), 254 NLRB 783, 787-788 (1981), enfd 684 F 2d 359 (6th
Or 1982); Tri-State Building Trades Council (Stark Electric), 262 NLRB
672, 674-675 (1982)
B If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
GENERAL TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
SALESDRIVERS AND HELPERS' UNION
LOCAL No. 179, INTERNATIONAL BROTH-
ERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMER-
ICA
