International Association, Iron Workers No. 597

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 21, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 524 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers Affiliated Local Union
No. 597, AFL-CIO and Linbeck Construction
Corporation . Case 12-CC-833
January 21, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On September 20, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Charles W. Schneider issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent, the
General Counsel, and the Charging Party each filed
exceptions and a supporting brief.'
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
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified
herein.
1. The Administrative Law Judge found, and we
agree, that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B)
of the Act by engaging in, and by inducing and
encouraging employees of Linbeck Construction
Corporation to engage in, a strike against Linbeck
with an object of forcing or requiring Linbeck to
cease doing business with Architectural Products,
Inc.
As set forth in detail in the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision, Respondent's business agent, on
the morning of May 11, 1973, asked ironworkers
working for Linbeck if they would like to go to,
another project which offered considerable overtime
pay. Within 30 minutes, the six ironworkers left the
jobsite and were given referrals to the other project
by the business agent. The Administrative Law Judge
correctly concluded that offering the Linbeck crew
the opportunity to earn overtime pay by transferring
was a pretext. The record supports the finding that
the ironworkers were withdrawn from the jobsite
because Architectural Products, Inc., a subcontrac-
tor, had assigned work claimed by the Respondent to
its own employees represented by a different union.
Thus, the object of the work stoppage was to attempt
I The Respondent has requested oral argument This request is hereby
denied as the record, the exceptions , and the briefs adequately present the
issues and the positions of the parties
2 Member Kennedy would find that Respondent 's refusal to refer
ironworkers to Linbeck from May I i to May 29, 1973, also violated the Act
He agrees with the majority that referring the Linbeck crew to the Kennedy
to force Linbeck, a neutral employer, to cease doing
business with Architectural Products, Inc.
The General Counsel, in filing limited exceptions
with respect to the violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B)
of the Act, requests that the Board substitute for the
language used in the Administrative Law Judge's
recommended Order and notice the language nor-
mally used to remedy this type of violation. The
Charging Party filed similar exceptions. We find
merit in the exceptions and shall accordingly amend
the recommended Order and notice.
2. The Administrative Law Judge found that the
Respondent did not violate Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of
the Act by threatening or coercing Linbeck for a
proscribed objective. Although there is no evidence
that any of Respondent's agents expressly threatened
Linbeck, both the General Counsel and the Charging
Party contend that, since Respondent successfully
induced the work stoppage against Linbeck, Respon-
dent's conduct necessarily had the effect of threaten-
ing Linbeck. We agree. As stated in Local 370, United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefftting Industry of the United States
and Canada, AFL-CIO (Baughan Plumbing and
Heating Company, Incorporated), 157 N LRB 20, 21,
"The Board has consistently held that a strike or
work stoppage against a neutral employer constitutes
restraint and coercion of such employer within the
meaning of clause (ii) of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act."
(Footnote omitted.) Accordingly, we find, contrary
to the Administrative Law Judge, that Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act by effective-
ly inducing the work stoppage against Linbeck for a
proscribed objective.
3. Both the General Counsel and the Charging
Party except to the Administrative Law Judge's
finding that Respondent did not violate Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act by refusing to refer iron-
workers to Linbeck from May II to May 29, 1973.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that the
evidence fails to prove that Respondent unlawfully
refused to refer ironworkers. Although the evidence
shows that Linbeck requested ironworkers on May
11, 1973, and that Respondent did not refer any
employees until May 30, 1973, the evidence also
shows that there was a shortage of ironworkers in the
area.2 On the state of the record herein, it would be
at least as valid to infer that the failure to refer
ironworkers was caused by the lack of ironworkers as
to infer that it was caused by a proscribed objective.
Accordingly, we find that the General Counsel has
project was a pretext and Respondent thereby violated Sec. 8 (bx4)(i)(B) and
8(b)(4)(u)(B) of the Act The refusal to supply ironworkers until the eve of
the 10(I) injunction proceeding was just as unlawful as the removal of the
ironworkers from the job, in Member Kennedy 's view Logic dictates^that if
the withdrawal was a pretext then the failure to supply replacements was
also a pretext
208 NLRB No. 74
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, IRON WORKERS NO. 597
not met his burden of proof and we shall adopt the
Administrative Law Judge's dismissal of this allega-
tion.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Delete Conclusion of Law 3 in the Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge and substitute therefor
the following:
"3. By engaging in, and by inducing and encourag-
ing employees of Linbeck Construction Corporation
to engage in, a strike against Linbeck to cease doing
business with Architectural Products, Inc., the
Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) of
the Act."
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, as
modified below , and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent , International Association of Bridge , Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers Affiliated Local
Union No. 59/, AFL-CIO, Jacksonville , Florida, its
officers , agents, and representatives , shall take the
action set forth in said recommended Order, as
modified below:
1. Delete paragraph I of the recommended Order
and substitute therefor the following:
"1. Cease and desist from:
"(a) Threatening , coercing, or restraining Linbeck
Construction Corporation, or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce , where an object thereof is to force or
require Linbeck Construction Corporation, or any
other person , to cease doing business with Architec-
tural Products, Inc.
"(b) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any
individual employed by Linbeck Construction Cor-
poration , or any other person engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in, a
strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to
use, manufacture , process, transport , or otherwise
handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or
commodities or to perform any services , where an
object thereof is to force or require Linbeck
Construction Corporation , or any other employer or
person , to cease doing business with Architectural
Products, Inc."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
525
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTFD BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain
Linbeck Construction Corporation, or any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce, with an object of forcing or
requiring any such person to cease doing business
with Architectural Products, Inc.
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encour-
age any individual employed by Linbeck Con-
struction Corporation, or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the
course of his employment to use, manufacture,
process, transport, or otherwise handle or work
on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities
or to perform any services, where an object
thereof is to force or require Linbeck Construc-
tion Corporation, or any other person, to cease
doing business with Architectural Products, Inc.
IN rERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL AND
ORNAMENTAL IRON
WORKERS AFFILIATED
LOCAL UNION No. 597,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
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 compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Federal Building, 400 West Bay
Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202, Telephone
904-791-2168.
DECISION
CHARLES W. SCHNEIDER , Administrative Law Judge: On
May 17, 1973, Linbeck Construction Corporation, the
Charging Party, filed an unfair labor practice charge, and
on May 25 , 1973, an amended charge, against Internation-
al Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers Affiliated Local Union No. 597, AFL-CIO, the
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had violated
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor
Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 151, el seq. ). On June 25, 1973,
the Regional Director issued a complaint and notice of
hearing upon the charges. In sum the complaint alleged
that the Respondent struck, and induced and encouraged
employees of Linbeck, the Charging Party, to strike,
threatened Linbeck, and refused to refer ironworkers to
him with an object of compelling Linbeck and other
persons to cease doing business with Architectural Prod-
ucts, Inc. The Respondent duly filed its answer denying the
commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before me at
Jacksonville, Florida on July 17, 1973. All parties were
represented at the hearing by counsel, and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to introduce material
evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs. Briefs
were filed by the Respondent, the Charging Party, and the
General Counsel on, respectively, August 13, August 15,
and August 17, 1973. Upon consideration of the entire
record and the briefs, and upon my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF LINBECK AND OF
ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS
Linbeck Construction Corporation is a Texas corpora-
tion, licensed to do business in the State of Florida, where
it is, and at all times material herein has been, engaged in
business as a general contractor in the building and
construction industry. Linbeck maintains an office in
Jacksonville, Florida, and has been since September 1,
1972, to the present engaged, as the general contractor, in
the construction of a multimillion dollar professional office
building located at 820 Prudential Drive, Jacksonville,
Florida. During the past 12 months, Linbeck, in the course
and conduct of its aforesaid building project, has pur-
chased and received materials and supplies valued in
excess of $50,000 which were shipped directly to it from
points located outside the State of Florida.
Architectural Products, Inc., is a Florida corporation with
its principal office and place of business at Palm Beach
Gardens, Florida. It is engaged in business in various cities
within the State of Florida as a specialty contractor.
During the past 12 months, Architectural has purchased
and received at various jobsites in the State of Florida
supplies and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which
were shipped directly to it from points located outside the
State of Florida. At all times herein, Architectural has had
a subcontract with Linbeck to erect and install all exterior
wall panels used in the construction of the aforesaid
professional office building.
Linbeck and Architectural are now, and have been at all
times material herein, engaged in commerce, or in an
industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers Affiliated Local Union No.
597, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issue
The theory of the General Counsel and the Charging
Party is that the Respondent Iron Workers threatened and
conducted a strike against Linbeck, the general contractor
on the project involved, to compel him to cease doing
business with his subcontractor, Architectural Products,
because Architectural had assigned the erection of exterior
curtain wall panels, known as Corspan, on the building to
the Carpenters Union, rather than to the Iron Workers
Union.
This the Respondent denies. Though the Respondent has
raised some legal arguments, disposed of hereinafter, as I
have analyzed the evidence the issue is solely one of
motivation. It is conceded that Linbeck's ironworkers left
the job. The question is why?
1. The jurisdictional agreement between the
unions
For a number of years prior to 1967 a jurisdictional
dispute existed between Local 627 of the Carpenters
Union, Local 2 of the Bricklayers Union, and the
Respondent Iron Workers Union Local 597, as to who
should install precast exterior wall panels on buildings in
the Jacksonville, Florida, area . However, in 1967 the three
unions resolved their differences and on October 26 of that
year entered into a written agreement signed by the
representatives of each, allocating the installation of the
panel work among the respective crafts pursuant to certain
specified criteria. To the extent material here, the agree-
ment provided that on single story structures such panels,
if not laid in wet mortar, should be installed by the
Carpenters and the Iron Workers with an equal composite
working crew. On multistory buildings, the agreement
provided that the panel should be installed in accordance
with "the existing agreement between the Bricklayers and
Iron Workers International Union."
The terms of the "existing agreement" are not disclosed
in the record. However, the testimony indicates that the
parties contemplated that, however the work was assigned
as between the Carpenters and the Bricklayers, the Iron
Workers would share equally with either union. So far as
the record discloses, this agreement was continuously
observed by the unions until the interposition of Architec-
tural Products Inc. and the Johns-Manville Corporation on
the instant project, when Architectural Products assigned
the installation of Corspan exclusively to the Carpenters in
accordance with a national policy of Johns-Manville, the
manufacturer of the panel, to have it installed by members
of that craft.
2. The project
The project involved is the construction of a multistoried
professional office building in the city of Jacksonville.
Linbeck is the general contractor. Architectural Products is
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION , IRON WORKERS NO. 597
primarily involved in the sale, and occasionally the
installation, of Corspan. Linbeck employed Architectural,
under contract, to supply and to install Corspan on the
project. Corspan is manufactured by Johns-Manville
Corporation. Architectural Products is a distributor of
Corspan under contract with Johns-Manville. So far as
appears this is the extent of Johns-Manville's interest in the
project.
Erection of the panels on this project involves raising
them into position and attaching them by toggle bolts to
angle irons welded to inserts in the building. Insertion of
the angle irons and the welding is performed by members
of the Respondent Iron Workers employed by Lmbeck,
and the assignment of that work is not the subject of
controversy.
3. Employment of ironworkers
At least one subcontractor on the job, Blair Contracting
Company, a structural steel contractor, also employs
ironworkers. These ironworkers, as well as those employed
by Linbeck, were secured through the Respondent's hiring
facilities in Jacksonville.
Linbeck's principal office is in Houston, Texas. At no
time has it had any contract with the Respondent Iron
Workers. At all material times the demand for ironworkers
in the Jacksonville area has exceeded the supply.
Linbeck began to need ironworkers for the project about
April 1, 1973, and at that time Superintendent Lawson
requested John Bowden, business agent of the Respondent,
to supply him with such help. However, because of the
shortage of ironworkers, Bowden was unable to furnish
any to Linbeck until April 16, at which time he sent
Linbeck one man. From then on Linbeck got ironworkers
intermittently, one or more at a time, until by May 1 there
were approximately one-half dozen on his payroll. They
remained on the job until May 11, 1973, at which time they
left under the circumstances which are alleged to constitute
the unfair labor practices.
During this period of employment some of Linbeck's
ironworkers complained to Respondent Business Agent
Bowden about safety conditions on the job, and also about
other workers being permitted to do work in the jurisdic-
tion of the iron craft. Bowden spoke to Lawson about the
safety matter, and the conditions were apparently reme-
died. With respect to the jurisdictional question, Bowden
told the ironworkers that this was a consequence of his
being unable to supply Lawson with a sufficient number of
employees to perform the work.
In addition, a number of the ironworkers on the Job, who
were on an 8-hour-day 5-day-week schedule, told
Bowden that they would like to be assigned to projects
where they could work overtime. The men particularly
I The finding as to the apparent disagreement between the Bricklayers
and the Carpenters is based on the testimony of Respondent' s Business
Agent Bowden. Thus his testimony (Tr p. 148)
George [Schuman, business agent of the Bricklayers Union]
interpreted it to he that of precast-the carpenters, when they come
along, said that this is some other substance ; they interpreted it to be
another thing, and they got in a hassle over it ; I never entered into it.
x The text of the latter, addressed to Carpenters Local 627, and with
copies to Superintendent Lawson. and to William M. Malone, Johns-
527
asked for assignment to the Kennedy project, one
involving the construction of an electrical generating plant.
Bowden told the men that he would send them at the first
opportunity.
4. The disagreement between the Bricklayers and
the Carpenters
During the month of April, disagreement apparently
developed between Bricklayers Local 2 and Carpenters
Local 627 as to which of them should be entitled under the
terms of the 1967 agreement to erect the Corspan for
Architectural Products on the Linbeck job. This disagree-
ment did not involve the Iron Workers since both the
Bricklayers and the Carpenters were in agreement that in
any event the Iron Workers should participate in the
erection with a composite crew. The disagreement revolved
around whether Corspan was a precast material.[
As an apparent consequence of this disagreement, a
meeting of representatives of the Bricklayers Union, the
Carpenters Union, and the Respondent was held in
Superintendent Lawson's office at the jobsite in late April.
This meeting was called by Business Agent Schuman of the
Bricklayers. The Carpenters were represented by their
Business Agent George Geiger, and the Respondent Iron
Workers by John Bowden. Superintendent Lawson was
also present.
At this meeting Schuman and Geiger aired their
apparently differing interpretations of the 1967 agreement,
respecting whether the Bricklayers or the Carpenters
should erect the Corspan. Both were in agreement that
whichever of them did the work the Respondent Iron
Workers would participate in accordance with the terms of
the 1967 agreement. Schuman asked Superintendent
Lawson to make an assignment of the work. Lawson
declined, stating that he had no authority to do so, that it
was a matter for Architectural Products to decide, and the
meeting ended on that note . Business Agent Bowden did
not participate in this discussion. His only participation in
the meeting was to speak to Lawson concerning safety
conditions on the job.
5. The assignment
Approximately May 3, 1973, Robert Boyle, president of
Architectural Products, made a formal assignment of the
erection of the Corspan to the Carpenters. Respondent's
Business Manager Bowden learned of this assignment
approximately May 5, and on May 9 the Carpenters began
installing the panels.
Boyle's letter of assignment did not specifically state that
the Iron Workers would not participate in the erection.2
Business Agent Bowden assumed after hearing of the
Manville Sales Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia, is as follows:
Please consider this letter as assignment of the subject work to the
Carpenters Local Union #627
Johns-Manville Corspan panels are an asbestos cement extrusion and
the assignment is made based on the existing national practice for this
product
Please accept our apologies for not making this assignment sooner but
(Continued)
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assignment that the Iron Workers would participate in the
erection in accordance with the agreement. He continued
to be under this impression until the May 11, when he was
advised to the contrary under circumstances to be
descnbed.3
6. The request from Kennedy
On May 10, 1973, Bowden received a request from the
contractor on the Kennedy project for a crew of ironwork-
ers for an emergency job. This job involved overtime at
double pay-either 10/6 or 10/7, the record is not clear
which.4
7. May 11; the ironworkers leave Linbeck's job
On the following day, May 11, Linbeck's ironworkers
reported to the job at the regular hour, 7 a.m., and began
work as usual. During the next several hours a series of
conversations took place involving Ironworker Steward
Thomas Canady, Superintendent Lawson, Business Agent
Bowden, and Iron Worker Foremen Charles Thrasher and
Ray Hoffman, following which Linbeck's ironworkers left
the job and went to work on the Kennedy project. There is
some inconsequential conflict in the testimony as to the
sequence and the initiation of these conversations, but
substantially none as to their import. I have reconstructed
the essential particulars as follows:
At or about 8:30 a.m. Steward Canady came to
Superintendent Lawson's office and asked Lawson wheth-
er the Iron Workers were going to participate in the
erection of the Corspan. Lawson advised Canady that the
work had been assigned by Architectural Products to the
Carpenters, and he showed Canady a copy of the letter of
May 3, 1973. Canady then telephoned Business Agent
Bowden, who indicated to Canady his disinterest in the
assignment, but nevertheless asked Canady to have
Lawson call him (Bowden).
Lawson then telephoned Bowden, who asked Lawson
whether the Iron Workers would participate in the erection
of the panels. Lawson gave Bowden the same reply he had
given Canady. Bowden then asked Lawson to have Canady
call him (Bowden). Within the next several minutes
Bowden spoke to Canady and to Iron Worker Foreman
Thrasher, a member of the Iron Workers, and asked them
whether they and the crew would like to go on the
Kennedy job. Canady and Thrasher replied in the
affirmative and within 30 minutes all of Lawson's
ironworkers left the job, were given referrals by Bowden to
the Kennedy project and went to work there. Superintend-
ent Lawson observed the men's preparation for leaving and
gave them their paychecks. They gave him no reason for
we were under the false impression that when we signed the contract
with your local, the contract itself acted as an assignment.
3 This finding is based in part on Bowden's testimony and in part on
inference. Bowden testified that on May I1 he advised Respondent's job
steward for Linbeck, Thomas Canady. that he assumed that the iron
Workers would nor participate in the erection of the Corspan. He later
testified, however, that at the time of the May I I events he was operating
under the assumption that the Iron Workers would get half the Corspan
work, in accordance with the April agreement of the three unions This
latter testimony seems in accord with the occurrences on May 11
4 Business Agent Bowden's testimony was that it was a 10/6 job (that is
leaving the job and apparently he did not ask for any. By
8:45 a.m. the ironworkers were gone.
At or about 9:30 a.m. Superintendent Lawson sought to
reach Business Agent Bowden by telephone but was unable
to. At or about 11:45 a.m. he called again , this time
reaching Bowden . Lawson asked Bowden why he had
pulled the men off the job. The gist of Bowden's reply is
that Linbeck and Architectural had not abided by the area
practice, the 1967 agreement, in assigning the Corspan
work and that he (Bowden) "didn't want . . . outsiders
coming in and disrupting the trades council by not abiding
by the local agreements." Lawson replied that Architectur-
al Products and Johns-Manville did not consider the
material to be precast and therefore not subject to the 1967
agreement. Lawson said that it was not his responsibility to
make the job assignment, to which Bowden agreed, adding,
however, that as the general contractor Lawson was
responsible for the actions of Architectural. Bowden also
told Lawson that the men were dissatisfied and wanted to
leave the job, and that as soon as he had more men he
would send them to Linbeck. The conversation apparently
finally terminated with Bowden telling Lawson that he had
checked with his attorney and that he felt that he was on
solid legal ground, and that Linbeck could take the matter
to court if it wanted.5
On the same day, May 11, Superintendent Lawson sent a
telegram to Business Agent Bowden with a copy to the
International Iron Workers Union, stating the following:
This is to advise you that you have improperly caused a
work stoppage on the Laurette J Howard Building at
Baptist Hospital as a result of a work assignment
dispute between your Union and the Carpenters
Union. This conduct is in direct violation of the
collective bargaining agreement and the National
Labor Relations Act. We demand that you immediate-
ly man this job and submit your dispute in accordance
with the proper procedure.
The reference to a collective-bargaining agreement is
apparently to agreements between the various craft
construction unions in the Jacksonville area and the
particular contractors. As has been seen, there is no
collective-bargaining agreement between Linbeck and the
Respondent. Lawson, unfamiliar with area practices,
appears to have been under the erroneous impression at
that time that there was a multiple-employer contract
between the Jacksonville construction contractors associa-
tion and the various unions. Bowden's testimony as to the
telegram was that he did not see it, though conceding that
it may have been delivered to his office.
On May 17, 1973, Linbeck filed the instant charge of
10 hours a day, 6 days a week), the testimony of Charles W Thrasher, Iron
Worker's foreman for Linbeck, is that it was a 10/7job (10 hours. 7 days)
a The findings as to this conversation are based on a composite of the
testimony of Lawson and Bowden . Lawson 's testimony as to the incident
contains no reference to Bowden's statement that the crew was dissatisfied
with thejob . Nor does Bowden 's direct examination Bowden's first allusion
to it is on cross-examination . Bowden admitted the gist of the above
findings as to his statements concerning the assignment of the Corspan
work As to the reference to having checked with his attorney. Bowden's
testimony is that he may have made the statement in jest, but that he had
not in fact consulted his attorney
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, IRON WORKERS NO. 597
violation of Section 8(b)(4), and on May 25 an amended
charge. Linbeck also filed a charge of violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the statute alleging the existence of a
jurisdictional dispute, but this charge was later withdrawn.
The departure of Linbeck's ironworkers did not immedi-
ately affect the Corspan job. because the galvanized iron
angles for attaching the Corspan to the building had at that
time been installed on several floors. The testimony of
Robert Boyle, president of Architectural, is that Corspan
erection continued through the month of May and then
shut down the first 2 weeks of June pending the installation
of more angle non.
At the time Linbeck's ironworkers left the Linbeck job,
Blair Contracting Company, the structural steel contractor,
had no ironworkers on the project. About May 18 or 20
Superintendent Lawson called Blair and asked for the loan
of some of Blair's ironworkers. Blair then called Business
Agent Bowden and asked Bowden if he had any problem
on the Linbeck job, saying that he had more work to do on
the project and wanted to be sure before he returned.
Bowden told Blair that there was no problem and that if
Blair had any work to do at the project he should go ahead
and do it. Blair did not loan any of his ironworkers to
Linbeck.
8. The return of the ironworkers
By May 30 the emergency job at the Kennedy project to
which the Linbeck crew had been dispatched was substan-
tially completed and the crew thereupon returned to
Linbeck. Since that date there have been no interruptions
and the Respondent has supplied Ltnbeck with all the
ironworkers Linbeck has requested.
On June 7, 1973, a hearing was held in the United States
district court on the General Counsel's request for an
injunction against the Respondent on the 8(b)(4)(B)
charge.
9. The June 8 meeting
On June 8, 1973, a meeting was held at the jobsite
between representatives of the Respondent and representa-
tives of the Carpenters. Representing the Respondent were
John Walsh, an international representative, and Business
Agent Bowden; representing the Carpenters were Van
Pittman, an international representative, and Local 627
officials George Geiger and John Sea. Superintendent
Lawson also attended. The purpose of this meeting was to
attempt to resolve the underlying jurisdictional problem.
This was essentially a meeting between international
representatives. While Bowden's testimony is that he told
International Representative Walsh that he was not
interested in the Corspan work, it is undenied that the Iron
Workers contended at this meeting that the issue should be
settled within the bounds of the 1967 agreement, and that
Bowden said specifically "half the work is mine, we're
entitled to it." Apparently nothing came of the meeting.
Though its ostensible purpose might suggest that the
Carpenters had reversed their previous position and were
now claiming all the Corspan work, the evidence does not
529
reflect such a development. I infer from the absence of
indication of such a reversal, and from the fact that the
8(b)(4)(D) charge was withdrawn, that the Carpenters
continued to agree that the Iron Workers should share in
the erection.
Other than what may be inferred from what has been
stated, so far as the record discloses, neither Business
Agent Bowden nor any other representative of the Iron
Workers ever made any demand either upon Linbeck or
upon Architectural Products that the work of erecting
Corspan should be assigned to Iron Workers.
B. Conclusions
The complaint alleges that the Respondent engaged in a
strike or work stoppage, and induced and encouraged
individuals to so engage, and has threatened Linbeck and
others through (a) action of Bowden and Thomas Canady
on May 11, 1973, in withdrawing Linbeck's ironworkers,
(b) threats by Bowden to Linbeck that the Respondent
would not permit its members to work for Linbeck unless
the Iron Workers participated in the Corspan erection, and
(c) refusal to refer ironworkers to Linbeck during the
period from May II to May 30. 1973.
I find no evidence to sustain the allegation in (a)
respecting Thomas Canady, the allegation in (b) that
Bowden threatened Linbeck, or the allegation in (c) that
the Respondent refused to refer ironworkers to Linbeck. I
will therefore recommend that those allegations be dis-
missed. That leaves for resolution the question whether the
record establishes that the Respondent engaged in or
induced and encouraged employees to engage in a work
stoppage or strike. If so, the conclusion that they did must
be bottomed on a finding that Business Agent Bowden's
action in asking Steward Canady and Foreman Thrasher
whether the crew would like to go on the Kennedy job and
in providing them with referrals when the answer was
affirmative constituted either: (1) the calling of a strike or
work interruption by Bowden, (2) the inducement or
encouragement of one, or (3) that the action of the crew in
leaving the job was itself a stnke. Unless at least one of
these alternatives can be found no violation has been
established.
I find the evidence insufficient to warrant a conclusion
that the employees' action in leaving the job was with a
purpose by them to strike. This record will not support a
finding that the employees themselves were animated by
any motive in leaving the job other than the desire to
secure the overtime work at Kennedy.6
This, however, does not end the matter, since Bowden's
action in offering the crew the Kennedy employment and
in dispatching them, if motivated by his displeasure over
the Corspan assignment , may constitute the calling of a
strike or inducement or encouragement of one. If that
motivation were present I have no substantial problem
with finding the inducement and encouragement, even if
the motivation were not communicated to and may have
been unknown to the employees. An awareness that
inducement or encouragement is taking place is not
6 Or, perhaps , as Foreman Thrasher testified for himself, his dissatisfac-
tion with thejob.
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
essential to a finding of their existence, anymore than is
consciousness of fraud, deception, or seduction a condition
of their being. However, to deem Bowden's conduct as
constituting the calling of a strike may not immediately be
so clear.
The coincidence of the withdrawals from the job without
notice over the span of approximately one-half hour, with
the disclosure to Bowden that the Iron Workers would not
participate in the Corspan erection work, raises a strong,
and in the absence of effective rebuttal, irresistible,
suggestion that the withdrawals were the result of the
disclosure. Here, however, there are contraindications on
which the Respondent relies. Bowden's testimony is that he
took the crew from the Linbeck job because (1) they were
dissatisfied, (2) the Kennedy project, which involved the
construction of a generator, was at that moment the more
important one, and (3) earnings were greater because of the
overtime, and the men had been asking for such an
assignment. Bowden further testified that he was not
interested in the Corspan work for the reason that he could
not supply men to do it. There is evidence to support these
assertions, and if there were not other factors tending to
refute them, they might indeed carry the day. But on the
totality of the evidence I am not persuaded that these were
the substantial operative considerations.
If dissatisfaction with the job is equated with the desire
for overtime work, I am willing to accept that in this
respect the employees may have been dissatisfied. But I
think it significant that this dissatisfaction, according to
Bowden and Thrasher, had existed from the beginning of
the job. I therefore find it difficult to accept desire to
assuage that discontent as a satisfactory explanation for
the abrupt and coincidental transfer. And if by dissatisfac-
tion is meant other specific grievances, such as safety
conditions and the performance of ironworkers work by
others, those are also of doubtful acceptability. Business
Agent Bowden's testimony, I believe, makes plain that
after his complaint to Superintendent Lawson in April with
respect to safety conditions the matter was adjusted. With
respect to the intrusion upon Iron Workers jurisdiction,
Bowden's testimony is, as he himself explained to the crew,
that this resulted from inability of Bowden to supply
Linbeck with sufficient ironworkers to perform the tasks.
This then leaves as possible motivation for the transfer of
the crew the providential occurrence of the temporary
emergency at the Kennedy project with its opportunity for
overtime. In the absence of dispute I have accepted
Business Agent Bowden's testimony as to the Kennedy
development. Equally, but with somewhat more hesitation,
I have also accepted the testimony of Bowden and
Foreman Thrasher to the effect that the entire crew,
without exception, accepted the transfer because of their
desire for the overtime; for such unanimity of view, if
overtime was the substantial attraction, seems surprising.
On its face, then, the explanation for the transfer may have
apparent plausibility. When combined with other admitted
or uncontroverted evidence, it provides arguable surface
support for the proposition that the work assignment was
unrelated to the job shift. Thus, I find that had the Iron
Workers been permitted to participate in the erection of
the Corspan, Bowden might have been unable to supply
the necessary men. The additional work would only have
provided him with additional problems in manning the
projects in the area . In that sense , then , I think that we can
safely accept Bowden's testimony that he had no interest in
the work. That conclusion, however, does not rule out the
possibility that he had other interest in retaining it. Also
supportive of the Respondent, to some extent, is the fact
that the Respondent was under no obligation, contractual
or otherwise, to man Linbeck's job. It had no contract with
him and was under no legal requirement to supply him
with labor. On the other hand, the Kennedy project
presumably involved a contract relationship between the
Respondent and the contractor. Bowden could thus, as he
testified, feel under an understandable obligation to prefer
supplying Kennedy to supplying Linbeck.
Other factors support the defense. Thus, as soon as the
work at Kennedy was completed the crew was returned to
Linbeck. In addition, while the crew was at Kennedy,
Business Agent Bowden assured subcontractor Blair that
he (Bowden) had not pulled the ironworkers off the
Linbeck job and told Blair that he should continue with his
work on the project using his Iron Worker employees. In
addition, it must be remembered that at no time did the
Respondent make a specific demand on either Linbeck or
Architectural Products for the Corspan work. On those
facts the Respondent's defense thus has a prima facie
plausibility. However, other facts tend to impair that
conclusion.
In the first place there is the matter of coincidence,
which, while not alone conclusive, is of weight. While the
possibility of coincidence is not impossible of acceptance,
the concurrence of events is sufficiently striking, in the
circumstances , as to require rather convincing demonstra-
tion that it may satisfactorily be ascribed to coincidence.
Second is the fact that the crew was transferred
precipitately in the middle of a shift. While an emergency
involving preservation of life or property might well
require abrupt action, there is no suggestion that the
emergency on the Kennedy job was of such character.
Third, Bowden gave Linbeck no prior notice of the
situation, despite the fact that, according to Bowden, he
was advised on the afternoon of the previous day of the
Kennedy emergency. Indeed, his testimony is that on the
afternoon of the 10th he sought to notify the Linbeck crew
of the Kennedy opportunity, but they had already left the
project for the day. On the following morning, though the
crew began work at 7 a.m., Bowden did not speak to any of
them until approximately 8:30, when he first talked to
Steward Canady-and that conversation was neither on
Bowden's initiative nor did it have reference to the
Kennedy job. As we have seen, the conversation only came
about because Canady called Bowden with reference to the
Iron Workers' participation in Corspan erection. Over the
period of apparently the next half hour Bowden, according
to his testimony, had another conversation with Canady,
and one with Lawson, in neither of which did he suggest
that the Linbeck crew was needed at Kennedy. It was not
until after he had been specifically advised by Lawson that
the ironworkers would not participate in the Corspan
erection that Bowden called Foreman Thrasher and
advised him as to the availability of the Kennedy work.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, IRON WORKERS NO. 597 531
Even then Bowden did not inform Lawson of the situation.
It was Lawson who had to call Bowden to ask the reason
for withdrawal-a matter which took several hours. This
despite the fact, according to Bowden, that he had decided
prior to talking to Canady, Lawson, and Thrasher on May
11 that he would offer the men transfer to Kennedy.
Bowden's studied silence on the subject of Kennedy until
after he had learned of the decision as to the Corspan, is
inconsistent with any conclusion that up to that point he
was seriously considering offering the crew transfer to
Kennedy.
But, it is suggested, since Bowden had known for some
days of the assignment of the Corspan work to the
Carpenters, his conversation with Lawson on May 11
could not have precipitated the transfer. That conclusion
does not follow, for the reason that Bowden first learned in
the May 11 conversation that the Iron Workers would not
participate in the Corspan erection. Up until that time
Bowden had assumed that the Iron Workers and the
Carpenters would perform the erection with a composite
crew, in accordance with the 1967 agreement and the
understanding of the parties reached in the April meeting.
That fact, I believe, is the clue to the subsequent action.
But apart from those inferences based on the circum-
stances, there is direct testimony that the job assignment
was a factor in the transfer. Thus, when Lawson finally
reached Bowden at 11:30 a.m. on May 11 and asked him
the reason for the transfer, Lawson's testimony is that
Bowden replied that they had not abided by area practice
in assigning the Corspan work, and that he did not want
"outsiders" coming in and disrupting the Trades Council
by disregarding local agreements. Bowden admits that the
1967 agreement was discussed and stating that it should
have been given some consideration, and further that he
may have said that he had consulted his lawyer and felt
that he was on sound legal ground. I think it a fair
interpretation of this conversation, in the light of the
background, that Bowden indicated to Lawson his dis-
pleasure with the Corspan assignment and additionally
indicated that this was the reason for the transfer. In this
respect it is significant, I think, that at no time did Bowden
advise Lawson that the reason for the transfer was an
emergency job at Kennedy. His sole explanation to
Lawson, according to Bowden's testimony, is that the men
were "dissatisfied" and wanted to go on an overtime job.
Queried on cross-examination as to why he did not give
Lawson all the reasons for the transfer, Bowden's reply was
that he did not think it was "necessary."
I think it follows from these facts, and I find, that
Bowden took advantage of the availability of overtime
employment on the Kennedy project as a pretext for
offering the Linbeck crew the opportunity to transfer, and
that he did this to exhibit his displeasure at the failure of
the Iron Workers to be assigned some of the Corspan work.
That the Iron Workers did not need the work is beside the
point. As Bowden's statement to Lawson indicated,
Bowden resented the fact that out-of-area contractors,
none of them under contract with the Iron Workers, should
come into Jacksonville and upset, or permit the upsetting,
of jurisdictional agreements of long standing. It is not
difficult to sympathize with that position. As we have seen,
the 1967 agreement amicably, and apparently permanent-
ly, resolved a vexing and recurring dispute between the
three unions. While there may be, and apparently was,
reasonable difference of opinion as to whether or not the
Carpenters or the Bricklayers should have primary jurisdic-
tion under the 1967 agreement over the installation of
Corspan, there is no apparent reasonable justification for
the exclusion of the Iron Workers from participation in the
erection, since all the involved unions were in agreement in
that respect. The insistence of out-of-area contractors, such
as Architectural Products, with limited interest in the
maintenance of stable jurisdictional arrangements in
Jacksonville , or even more remotely interested manufactur-
ers such as Johns-Manville , on disregarding that disposi-
tion, simply because of Johns-Manville's apparent insist-
ence upon the application of its own national policy
scarcely seems reflective of concern for community
interests, or of heed for the maintenance of peaceful and
orderly labor relations in Jacksonville. It appears to me
that, absent paramount contrary public considerations,
and absent evidence of substantial economic considera-
tions (of which there is none here ), the deliberate
overriding of reasonable union jurisdictional agreements
which appear to have contributed to the stabilization of
labor relations over a period of years, cannot tend other
than to provoke action destructive of industrial peace.
Indeed this case is a testimonial of that effect.
In this connection it is to be noted that the existing
factual situation leaves the Iron Workers with no apparent
remedy under the Act by which they can pursue their claim
peacefully. The withdrawal of the 8(b)(4)(D) charge
prevents the holding of a 10(k) hearing in which the Iron
Workers might press their position before the Board, with
possible favorable result.
However , the Iron Workers' valid grievance against
Architectural Products and Johns-Manville does not, in the
terms of the statute , justify retaliation against Linbeck,
who, so far as the record reveals, has no control over the
assignment policies of Architectural Products.
The facts that Business Agent Bowden told Subcontrac-
tor Blair that he had not pulled the ironworkers off the job,
and that Blair should continue to work at the Linbeck
project, and that following the completion of the emergen-
cy at Kennedy, Bowden returned the crew to Linbeck, and
has since provided Linbeck with all the ironworkers it
needed, do not in the circumstances refute a conclusion
that the withdrawal was a consequence of work assign-
ment. All these actions occurred after the instant unfair
labor practice charges were filed, and in that context are of
minimal probative value.
That the Iron Workers exclusion from the Corspan
erection was a matter of concern to them is further
evidenced by the fact that the June 8 meeting was held
with international union representatives participating in an
apparent effort to resolve the problem . As we have seen,
Business Agent Bowden there specifically declared his
position to the effect that the Iron Workers were entitled to
half the work . That, as Bowden testified , he was not
instrumental in calling that meeting and was not "interest-
ed" in the work, does not belie his position that the Iron
Workers should have it.
532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Other Contentions Linbeck was responsible for the action of Architectural
Products. Again, the meeting of union representatives on
June 8 in an effort to resolve the assignment problem was
held in Lawson's office at the jobsite with Lawson present.T
In this context I think it a fair inference that the
withdrawal of the ironworkers from the Linbeck job had
as a purpose or object forcing or requiring Linbeck to have
Architectual Products assign the Corspan work in accord-
ance with the unions' agreement. In that situation a
foreseeable tendency of the pressure on Linbeck would be
to impel him to consider terminating his business relations
with Architectural Products. Since Bowden's action in
withdrawing the ironworkers from Linbeck constituted a
strike and inducement and encouragement of ironworkers
to strike Linbeck for the purpose of forcing or requiring
Linbeck to cease business relations with Architectural
Products, Bowden's action constituted a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act by the Respondent.
It is conceivable that the strike may also have had the
design of ultimately shutting down Architectural Products
installation of Corspan, since removal of the Iron Workers
ultimately had that effect. However if that was the thought,
a question I find unnecessary to determine here, that fact
does not negative the existence of the objective of having
Linbeck cease business relations with Architectural Prod-
ucts.
3. The Respondent cites the case of N.LR.B. v.
Carpenters District Council of Kansas City, 439 F.2d 225
(C.A. 8. 1971), and 398 F.2d II (C.A. 8, 1968), as
supporting the proposition that a general contractor may
not be a neutral employer, and thus validly be subject to a
strike to compel a subcontractor to hire certain employees.
In that case carpenters employed by a general contractor
struck to have the general contractor require a masonary
subcontractor to hire a carpenter on his masonry crews,
assertedly in accordance with area practice. It is perhaps
arguable that the opinions in that case suggest that, in the
court's view, if a union has a valid claim that a
subcontractor employ members of its union, and the
general contractor has retained authority to dictate the
makeup of the subcontractor's work force, the union may
validly strike the general contractor to enforce its claim to
the work. However, as I interpret the opinions in the
Carpenters District Council case the question involved was
whether the general contractor had subcontracted away
the right to control the selection of the masonry crew. The
court, in apparent agreement with the Board, held that he
had done so and that therefore the strike by the general
contractor's carpenters to compel the masonry subcon-
tractor to hire carpenters was a violation of Section 8(b)(4)
of the Act. Thus, the court said: "The general contractor
by legally subcontracting the precast fabrications has
placed it beyond his power to control the make up of the
subcontractor's employees." In the present case I am cited
to no reservation of authority in Linbeck to control the
makeup of Architectural Products crew which installed
considered Lawson to be an even more important figure in the resolution of
the problem of the assignment than Architectural Products and Johns-
Manville, neither of whom , so far as it appears in the evidence , was invited
to participate in the discussions.
In addition to denying that the work assignment
motivated the transfer of the crew to the Kennedy project,
the Respondent raises several other contentions.
1. The Respondent asserts that Linbeck's motivation
for filing the unfair practice charge was to pressure the
Respondent into supplying Linbeck with all the Iron
Workers he wished, to the prejudice of other employers in
the area. As evidence of this Respondent's counsel points
to the refusal of the General Counsel to consider any
settlement without the concurrence of Linbeck, and to
Linbeck's refusal to accept any adjustment or settlement of
the case without a formal Board order and consent decree.
Normally in the kind of situation disclosed by the evidence
here, absent a history of recidivism or a past course of
illegal conduct, an informal settlement agreement in which
the Respondent committed itself not to engage in any of
the conduct with which it is charged, would have seemed to
me an adequate remedy effectuating the policies of the
statute and a proper conservation of public funds. There is
no adverse history disclosed here. There is no explanation
as to why a formal consent decree should have been
required as a condition of settlement of the case.
Furthermore, the Respondent points out, it has indicated
its willingness to consider even such a decree, provided
that legitimate inability to supply ironworkers because of
shortages would not be considered an unfair labor practice.
I do not consider such facts to be a defense. Whatever
unreasonableness they may reflect, they do not warrant
dismissal of the complaint.
2. Secondly, the Respondent contends that the evidence
will in no event sustain a conclusion that by removing
the ironworkers Bowden sought to put pressure on
Linbeck with an object of forcing Linbeck to cease doing
business with Architectural Products. As to this, I conclude
that a reasonably expectable tendency of the removal of
the crew for the reason found, would be to force or require
Linbeck to apply pressure to Architectural Products. I
think it clear that the unions involved, including the
Respondent, considered Linbeck, as the general contrac-
tor, to be a key figure in the determination of the
assignment of the Corspan work, apparently even more
pivotal in that respect than Architectural Products itself.
Thus the April meeting of the three unions, called by the
Bricklayers, was held in Lawson's office with Lawson
present. At that meeting the Bricklayer business agent,
Schuman, specifically asked Lawson to make the assign-
ment to the Bricklayers. While it is true that Bowden made
no such claim or request at the meeting on behalf of the
Iron Workers, as Lawson put it in his testimony, "he didn't
need to," for the reason that the Carpenters and the
Bricklayers were in agreement that in any event the Iron
Workers were to share in the action. And in the telephone
conversation on May 11 between Lawson and Bowden,
when Lawson told Bowden that Architectural Products
and Johns-Manville did not regard the Corspan as precast
material, Bowden replied that as the general contractor
7 With respect to this meeting Lawson testified that he did not Join in the
discussion and that he merely provided technical information concerning
the method by which the Corspan is attached to the building The
significant fact, however, is that the unions throughout apparently
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, IRON WORKERS NO. 597
Corspan. The Carpenters District Council case is therefore
not authority helpful to the Respondent.
4. Finally the Respondent argues that as the general
contractor Linbeck has an inherent right of control over its
subcontractor. Architectural Products, a principle reflected
in some court decisions. However the right of control test
envisioned by the Respondent, and by some courts, has not
been adopted by --the Board. See for example Local Union
No. 438, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry (George Koch Sons,
Inc.) 201 NLRB 59. in the absence of contrary opinion of
the Supreme Court, the Board's views are binding on me.
The case of National Woodwork Manufacturers Association
v. N.L.R.B., 386 U.S. 612 (1967), cited by the Respondent,
is not contrary opinion.
Summary of Findings
It is found ano concluded that by the action of Business
Agent Bowden in arranging for the transfer of Linbeck's
ironworkers to the Kennedy project on May 11, 1973, the
Respondent engaged in and induced and encouraged
individuals to engage in a strike for the purpose of forcing
and requiring Linbeck to cease doing business with
Architectural Products, thereby violating Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
It is further found that the Respondent has not engaged
in unfair labor practices by any action of Thomas Canady,
or by any threats to Linbeck, or by the Respondent
refusing to refer ironworkers to Linbeck.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Linbeck Construction Corporation and Architectur-
al Products Inc., are each employers engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers Affiliated Local Union No.
597, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in, and by inducing and encouraging
employees of Linbeck Construction Corporation to engage
in, a strike against Linbeck, with an object of forcing or
requiring Linbeck to cease doing business with Architec-
tural Products Inc., the Respondent has violated Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor
practices by (1) any action of Thomas Canady, (2) threats
8 In the event no exceptions arc filed as prodded by Sec 10246 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 aid Regulations be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions , and order, and all objections thereto shall he
deemed waived for all purposes
533
by Business Agent Bowden to Linbeck, (3) refusing to
refer ironworkers to Linbeck, or (4) any action violative
of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I issue the following
recommended:
ORDERS
International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers Affiliated Local Union No.
597, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in a strike against
Linbeck Construction Corporation, or inducing or encour-
aging employees of Linbeck Construction Corporation to
engage in a strike, with an object of forcing or requiring
Linbeck to cease doing business with any other person.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondent's
business offices, meeting halls, and all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 12,
after being signed by the Respondent's representative, shall
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained 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
ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 12,
sufficient signed copies of the aforementioned notice for
posting by Linbeck Construction Corporation, Linbeck
willing, at any of its places of business in Jacksonville,
Florida, where notices to Linbeck's employees are custom-
arily placed.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in
writing, within 20 days after receipt of this decision, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
The following allegations of the complaint are dismissed:
(1) that Thomas Canady authorized, ratified, or condoned
employees of Linbeck to engage in a strike or to cease
working for Linbeck; (2) that John Bowden threatened
Linbeck; (3) that Respondent refused to refer ironworkers
to Linbeck, and (4) that the Respondent thereby violated
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
9 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 "