International Union, Local Union No. 12

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 6, 1979

243 N.L.R.B. 1121 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL UNION NO. 12
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
Union No. 12 and Griffith Company; J. W. Nicks
Construction Co.; and Security Paving Co., Inc.'
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
Union No. 12 and Griffith Company; J. W. Nicks
Construction Co.; and Security Paving Co., Inc. and
Associated General Contractors of California, Inc.;
Building Industry Association of California, Inc.;
and Engineering and Grading Contractors Associ-
ation, Inc., Parties to the Contract. Cases 21 CC-
1451 and 21-CE 126
August 6. 1979
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JNKINS
ANI) PNE.I.()
On June 28, 1974, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-enti-
tled proceeding.2 Therein, the Board held that the
fringe benefit fund clauses of the agreement in ques-
tion were substantially in the interest and for the pro-
tection of the employees of the signatory employers,
as opposed to union members, generally, and, accord-
ingly, that enforcement of those provisions consti-
tuted primary conduct beyond the proscription of
Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended. Likewise, the Board held that the
clauses themselves were not proscribed by Section
8(e) of the Act. The Board therefore dismissed the
complaint in its entirety, without determining
whether the aforesaid clauses fell within the construc-
tion industry exception to Section 8(e) or whether the
trust funds' administrator and his representative were
acting as agents of the Union within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(B) by engaging in certain conduct
with an object of forcing compliance with those
clauses. Thereafter, the Charging Parties filed a peti-
tion for review of the Board's Decision and Order and
the entire matter came to be heard before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On November 4, 1976, the court handed down its
opinion reversing the Board's Decision. 3 In the
court's view, the benefits sought to be achieved by the
clauses in question extend far beyond the relevant
work unit, because such benefits as would accrue to
the appropriate work unit were no more direct or sub-
' Subsequent to the onginal Decision and Order issued herein. Sukut-
Coulson, Inc.. and V & L Construction Co., Inc.. withdrew as parties in the
instant proceeding.
2212 NLRB 343.
545 F.2d 1194, cert. denied sub nom. Waggoner, et al. v. Griffith Company,
et al., 434 U.S. 854 (1977).
stantial than those conferred on other units. Thus, the
court concluded that the provisions and their enforce-
ment constitute unlawful secondary activity. The
court therefore remanded this proceeding to the
Board for consideration of the issues not previously
reached: namely, the applicability of the construction
industry proviso contained in Section 8(e) of the Act
to the clauses here in controversy, and the question
concerning agency.
The Board accepted the remand. Pursuant to said
remand, the Board invited the parties to file state-
ments of position with respect to the issues raised.
Such statements have been filed by the General
Counsel, the Charging Parties, and the Intervenors.4
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed further the entire record in
this proceeding, including the statements of position,
and, on the facts and for the reasons hereinafter set
forth, hereby finds:
The Charging Parties herein are bound to a master
labor agreement negotiated jointly by Respondent In-
ternational Union of Operating Engineers. Local
Union No. 12. and Associated General Contractors
of California, Inc. (herein AGC). Building Industry
Association of California, Inc, (herein BIA), and En-
gineering and Grading Contractors Association, Inc.
(herein EGCA). Among other things, the agreement
provides various fringe benefits for covered workers
who qualify. Specifically, these include a health and
welfare plan, a pension plan, and paid vacations and
holidays. Funding for these programs has been estab-
lished by several separate agreements and declara-
tions of trust, previously negotiated.
The master labor agreement requires that each cov-
ered contractor pay into the several trust funds thus
established designated sums for each hour a worker is
employed. The trust funds maintain separate records
for each of the workers, post to their accounts credit
thus earned, and disburse earned benefits to those
who qualify.
Each trust fund is controlled by a board of trustees
composed of an equal number of union and contrac-
tor association members. Any trustee may be re-
moved at will by the party responsible for his desig-
nation. The several boards exercise their
responsibility for administration of the trust funds
through a trust fund administrator, employed by a
nonprofit corporation whose board of directors is it-
' At the hearing. the Administrative Law Judge granted a motion to inter-
vene which was filed by counsel for the trustees of the Operating Engineers
Health and Welfare, Pension. Vacation-Holiday, and Apprentice Training
trust funds.
243 NLRB No. 153
1121
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
self composed of the several trust fund trustees (the
Intervenors herein).
Should any contractor covered by the aforemen-
tioned agreement become delinquent with respect to
trust fund contributions, the trust funds' administra-
tor may commence legal proceedings to recover such
delinquencies. To the same end, the agreement also
provides for self-help. Article , section B, paragraph
14, provides that the administrator:
shall give written notice to a delinquent Contrac-
tor or Subcontractor, with a copy of the Union,
advising him to correct a delinquency within ten
(10) days of the giving of such notice. The Union
shall withhold service from any or all jobs of
such delinquent Contractor or Subcontractor af-
ter said ten (10) day period if the delinquency is
not corrected.
The same section of the master labor agreement
also delineates circumstances whereby convered con-
tractors may become liable for the various accrued or
current delinquencies of their subcontractors. It pro-
vides, as well, the means for their recovery. These are
the provisions, quoted below, which give rise to the
instant proceeding:
15. The Trustees of the Trust Funds, through
their Administrator, shall furnish each Contrac-
tor Association and the Union, with a list of de-
linquent Contractors each month. The Contrac-
tor agrees that he will not subcontract any
portion his job to any Contractor whose name
appears on the delinquent list unless such Con-
tractor has paid all delinquent monies to the var-
ious Trust Funds.
16. In the event the Contractor subcontracts
to any such delinquent Subcontractor, in viola-
tion of the foregoing, the Contractor shall be lia-
ble to the Trustees for all accrued delinquencies
of the Subcontractor and shall withhold suffi-
cient funds from monies due or to become due
such Subcontractor and shall pay the sums over
to the Trust Funds. If a Subcontractor becomes
delinquent after commencing work for the Con-
tractor, the Contractor shall be liable for all de-
linquencies incurred on the job after ten (10)
days following the date of the delinquency list on
which the Subcontractor's name first appeared.
The Contractor shall terminate the contract of
the Subcontractor who fails to promptly correct
his delinquency.
(a) Where the Contractor fails or refuses to
make payments required under the above provi-
sions, the Union shall have the right to withhold
services from any or all jobs of such Contractor.
All contractor-members of the three trade associ-
ations, AGC, BIA, and EGCA, are bound by the
foregoing agreement, which covers an I l-county
southern California territory. In addition to these
contractors, others, likewise engaged in building and
construction work within the same area, may be
bound by the provisions of the master labor agree-
ment by signing so-called short-form contracts. These
contracts either paraphrase the relevant provisions of
the master labor agreement or adopt them by refer-
ence. Thus, short-form signatories are also contractu-
ally obligated to contribute to the several trust funds
supporting the health and welfare, pension, vacation
and holiday, and apprentice training programs.
As previously mentioned, the trust funds' adminis-
trator is responsible for the collection of delinquent
contributions. To this end, the administrator issues a
so-called 10-day delinquency notice to the defaulting
contractor, with a copy to Respondent Union. Should
the contractor thereafter fail to satisfy this delin-
quency within the aforesaid period, the contractor's
name is placed on the funds' official delinquency list,
which is dispatched to the concerned contractors as-
sociations, Respondent Union. and other signatory
employers pursuant to paragraph 15 of the master
labor agreement, quoted above. If the administrator
fails to obtain results by the foregoing action, he may
thereafter invoke paragraph 16.
In 197 1, an audit of the several trust funds revealed
substantial delinquencies on the part of a number of'
short-torm signatories doing business as members of
the so-called Urban Pacific Group. Between April 20
and October 19, 1972. these firms were awarded a
number of subcontracts calling for the performance
of underground pipe and sewer work from, among
others, the Charging Parties herein, who were en-
gaged as prime or general contractors on a number of
construction projects in southern California. By ac-
quiring these subcontracts, the Urban Pacific compa-
nies again became privy to the short-form agreement.
In January 1973, a trust fund's field representative
discovered two Urban Pacific Group members doing
subcontract work at a Nicks construction project.
Further investigation revealed that firms within the
Urban Pacific Group were also awarded subcontracts
by the other Charging Parties. These contractors were
then notified of their responsibility for payment of the
Urban Pacific delinquencies. Following a conference
with the trust funds' administrator in February, Secu-
rity and V & L paid a portion of the Urban Pacific
outstanding delinquency. Subsequently, Griffith was
requested to pay an amount in excess of the Urban
Pacific delinquency arising from the latter's failure to
make contributions for work performed under the
Griffith subcontract. On February 12, 1973, the trust
funds' administrator notified the treasurer of Respon-
1122
IN I RNA I ON()AI I NIO()N. lOC()(Al I NIO()N N() 12
dent Union, and a trustee of three of the trusts in-
volved, that, consistent with article 1. section 13. para-
graph 16(a). of the Master Labor Agreement.
Respondent Union had the "right to withhold ser-
vices" from "any or all jobs" of the five contractors
involved. There 'followed. between March 7 and 14.
1973, a series of telephone conversations between the
attorney representing the trust funds and counsel ftior
the five contractors. During one of these conversa-
tions, the trust funds' attorney warned his counter-
part that, if the contractors failed to satisfy the Urban
Pacific delinquencies, the trust funds' administrator
would renew his notice to Respondent Union regard-
ing the latter's right to withhold services under para-
graph 16(a). The foregoing gave rise to the issuance of
the complaint herein.
I. The court having found that the clauses here in
question and their enforcement constitute secondary
activity within the ambit of Sections 8(b)(4)(B) and
8(e) of the Act, it is incumbent upon us. in the first
instance, to determine whether or not the clauses are
nevertheless protected by the construction industry
proviso to Section 8(e) and are therefore valid.
The General Counsel and Charging Parties con-
tend that, under the Supreme Court's Connell deci-
sion,' these clauses are not privileged by the aforesaid
proviso because they are not limited. on their face, to
those times and places wherein the signatory em-
ployer actually employs individuals who are covered
by the agreement.
The Charging Parties further contend that the pro-
viso to Section 8(e) was designed solely to permit
agreements that require subcontractors to be parties
to contracts with a particular union and thereby alle-
viate the friction that may arise between union and
nonunion employees working at the same construc-
tion site, and, therefore, the proviso does not privilege
agreements whereby signatory employers agree to
guarantee the fringe benefit contributions of union
subcontractors. We find no merit in either contention.
In Woelke & Romero6 the Board reviewed subcon-
tracting clauses7 that were secondary in effect and de-
5 Connell Construction Co., Inc., v. Plumbers & Seam/iters Local U'non
No. 100, United Association of Journey men & 4pprentices of the Plumbing &
Pipefitting Industr of the United States and Canada. A4 Fl. ('10. 421 U S. 616
(1975).
* Carpenters Local No. 944. ULnited Brotherhood of C(arpenter, and Joiners of
America, AFL CIOI, and Carpenters Local No. 235, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, 4 FL -CIO. ( Woelke & Romero Framing.
Inc.), 239 NLRB 241 (1978).
7 The proposed contract in that case contained, inter alia, clauses 103.2.
103.3, 103.31, and 103.6 as follows:
103.2 The contractor agrees that neither he nor any of his subcontrac-
tors on the jobsite will subcontract an) work to be done at the site of
construction, alteration, painting or repair of a building. structure or
other work (including quarries, rock. sand and gravel plants, asphalt
plants, ready-mix concrete plants, established on or adjacent to the job-
site to process or supply materials for the convenience of the Contractor
for jobsite use) except to a person, firm or corporation. parts to an
termined that such provisions were, in fact. protected
hby the construction industry proviso to Section 8(e) as
the Supreme Court had interpreted it in ( ,nncU. sv1-
In its analysis of those clauses. the Board first
noted that it had in the past "construed the construc-
tion industry proviso literally to protect 'anx agree-
ment' between qualified parties which limits subcon-
tracting of work to be performed at the site of
construction to ermployers who are signator to a spe-
cific union agreement or to an agreement generall b
with the 'appropriate union' (meaning. generall an
affiliate of a building and construction trades coun-
il).?'
The Board then went on to find that the ('onncll
decision did not compel a narrower interpretation of
the proviso. Rather, the Board determined that the
Court's construction of the provisos permitted sub-
contracting clauses such as those involved in H'ocl'lA
& Romero as long as they were advanced in the con-
text of a collective-bargaining relationship between
the respondent union and the charging party.
Applying the rationale of 1 oclke & Romero to the
instant case. it is undisputed that, at all times material
herein. Respondent Union and the Charging Party
had an established collective-bargaining relationship.
Accordingly. we find no merit to the contention that
the disputed clauses herein are rendered unlawful by
the Supreme (Court's decision in (Connel
It is apparent, however, that the clauses involved in
the instant case achieve a somewhat different end
approprialte, current labor agreement sith the appriopriate I non. Ior
subrdinatle hod signalor this Agreement
103 3 Because oif the clIose rela.tinship between ndi\ dual Contractlrs
and subconlraclrs at the hbsite and the close communil of interests 1o'
the employees n thejobsile ith respect to on-site work covered hs this
Agreement. that is. work done at the site of construction. alteration.
painting or repair AIa building, structure or other work (including quar-
ries. rock. sand and grasel plants. asphalt plants. reads-mil concrete ir
batch plants. estahblished on or adjacent to the jobsite to process r
supply materials for the civenience of the Contractor fr jobsilte use.,
herein called ''obsite work," and because of the Union's concern that
subcontractors who are not subject to the same total labor costs as those
who are party heretio will deprise Union members employed hereunder
of work opportunities because oif lower labor costs. it is agreed as fol-
lows:
103.3 1 The ('ontractor and his subcontractors shall not subcontract any
jobsite work, except to a contractor whose emplobees on that job are
members of a bona-fide labor organization. and hose labor costs on
such job. at all times during the term of his subcontract hereunder are
not less than those of contractors performing similar vw ork to that cov-
ered by this Agreement, including. but not limited to, costs of subsis-
tence. vacation. holiday. medical, hospitalization. wages. premiums.
dental, life insurance and retirement benefits as prosided b this Agree-
ment
103.6 If the Contractor or subcontractors shall subcontlract jobsite work
covered under the jurisdiction if the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Jolners (o' America. including the furnishing and installation of
material, perfoirmance of labor, and the operation it equipment. prosi-
sion shall be made in written contract for the observance and compli-
ance of his subconiraclors with the full terms iof this Agreement
1H oielke & Rpttimro. supra
1123
I)F:('ISIONS OF NA I()NAI. IABOR RLA I IONS BOARI)
from those discussed in Woelke & Romero. T'he effect
of the clauses in the former case is to restrict a signa-
tory employer's ability to subcontract jobsite work to
subcontractors who do not have an agreement with
the particular union involved. The effect of the in-
stant clauses is to restrict a signatory employer's abil-
ity to subcontract jobsite work to employers who are
also signatory to an agreement with Respondent
Union, but who are listed as delinquent in their con-
tributions to the trust funds described above. In the
event the general contractor, in derogation of the
agreement, does in fact subcontract to delinquent
subcontractor, it becomes liable for all accrued delin-
quencies of the subcontractor.
As noted above, we do not agree with the conten-
tion of the Charging Party that the construction in-
dustry proviso to Section 8(e) does not protect the
fringe benefit guarantee clause involved herein. The
express terms of the proviso state, "That nothing in
. . . subsection (e) shall apply to an agreement be-
tween a labor organization and an employer in the
construction industry relating to the contracting or
subcontracting of work to be done at the site of . . .
construction .... " [Emphasis supplied.] Thus, we find
nothing in the express language of the proviso itself
that indicates the intention of Congress to protect
only union signatory agreements at construction sites.
We find additional support for the interpretation of
the proviso in the legislative history of the 1959
amendments to the Act. In the Senate debate prior to
the passage of those amendments, then Senator Ken-
nedy stated, in explaining the proviso of Section 8(e)
that:
Agreements by which a contractor in the con-
struction industry promises not to subcontract
work on a construction site to a nonunion con-
tractor appear to be legal today. They will not be
unlawful under Section 8(e). The proviso is also
applicable to all other agreements involving under-
takings not to do work on a construction site with
other contractors or subcontractors regardless of
the precise relation between them. [Emphasis sup-
plied.]9
We think that the above-stated portion of the legis-
lative history indicates that, while permitting union
signatory agreements with respect to the subcontract-
ing of construction site work may have been the pri-
mary intention of Congress in enacting the proviso, it
was not the sole and exclusive intention. Rather, the
emphasized language above demonstrates, in our
view, that the protection of the proviso may be ap-
plied to contract clauses with secondary objectives
concerning jobsite work regardless of the precise rela-
1II Leg. Hist. 1433 (LMRDA. 1959).
tionship between the general contractor and the sub-
contractor. Keeping in mind the special nature of the
construction industry and the close community of in-
terest that exists there, we find the requirement im-
posed by the disputed clauses that the general con-
tractor not subcontract work to delinquent
subcontractors is a legitimate interest protected by
the proviso.
That the general contractor ma become liable for
accrued delinquencies arising from previous jobs of
the subcontractor, if it. in derogation of paragraph 15.
subcontracts work to a delinquent subcontractor,
does not, in our opinion, remove the clause from the
protection of the proviso. Since the clauses clearly
relate to the subcontracting of work performed at the
jobsite, the fact that the economic implications of the
Charging Parties' failure to adhere to the clauses man
extend beyond the particular job in question is not a
crucial consideration.
2. We turn next to the contention of the General
Counsel and Charging Parties that whatever protec-
tion the questioned clauses might otherwise enjo is
removed because they provide for an unprivileged
means of self-enforcement.
The Board has consistently held, with court ap-
proval. that, although a secondary agreement falling
within the construction industry exception to Section
8(e) is exempt from the operation of that section, it
may be enforced only through lawsuits and not by
threats, coercion, or restraint proscribed by Section
8(b)(4).' ° Coercion. in this respect, has been defined as
"non-judicial acts of a compelling or restraining na-
ture, applied by way of concerted self help consisting
of a strike, picketing or other economic retaliation or
pressure in a background of a labor dispute."" Fur-
ther, we have held that clauses which authorize the
use of proscribed measures by a union to enforce sec-
ondar) subcontracting provisions will serve to re-
move whatever protection such clauses would other-
wise enjoy under the proviso to Section 8(e).' 2
Paragraph 16(a), quoted above. clearly permits Re-
spondent Union to strike signatory contractors if vol-
untary compliance with the secondary provisions of
the agreement is not achieved. Accordingly. we find
that article I, section B, paragraphs 15 through 16(a)
0 See, e.g.. Los Angeles Building and Construction 7Trade (ounlil, and
liocal Union No. 1497. Unted Brotherhood o (arpenteri and Joiners of A mer-
wa (Donald Schrtier. Inc). 239 NLRB 264 (11978): .4Associuted Builder. lupra
Eis-Hokin Corporation. 154 NLRB 839 (1965). enid. sub non. NL.R B
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. AFL C(IO and i I.roal
Union No. 769, 405 F.2d 159 (9th (Cir. 1968}: Muskegon Bricklaicr Lamon 5.
Bricklaers, Masons and Plasterers Internattonal nion o America. ( '
(10) (Greater Muskegon General C'ontractors Astn ,. 152 NLRB 360 I1965),
enfd. 378 F.2d 859 (6th Cir. 1967).
'' Local LUnion Vo. 48 o' Sheet Metal 'Worersi International Asotiuation
The Hardy Corporation, 332 F.2d 682, 686 (5th (ir. 1964).
1 Fn. 10, supra.
1124
INIERNAlI()NAL NION. LOCAL(. NION NO. 12
of the master labor agreement. is violative of Section
8(e) of the Act."
3. Finally, we must determine whether or not the
threat to invoke paragraph 16(a). by striking in sup-
port of the demand that the Charging Parties pay the
accrued Urban Pacific delinquencies in trust fund
contributions, constitutes conduct violative of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. The answer to this question.
in turn, depends on whether the trust funds' trustees.
acting through the representative of the administra-
tor, are agents of Respondent Union for purposes of
communicating such a threat. We hold that they are
not.
It is clear that joint trust funds established pursu-
ant to collective-bargaining agreements under Section
302(c) of the Labor-Management Relations Act of
1947.14 such as those involved in this proceeding.
must be administered for the "sole and exclusive
benefit of the employees." by trustees who "rlegard-
less of their representative relationships . . . are still
required to act with the highest fiduciaS integrity"
toward the funds and the beneficiaries.' 5 Thus, there
is nothing inherent in the system of relationships es-
tablished by the creation of joint trust funds which
accords agency status to the trustees appointed by the
trust settlors.
Concededly, we have found trustees of such funds
to be agents of both a union and a contributing em-
ployer for the purposes of accepting contributions
from a respondent is order to comply with backpay
awards,' 6 requesting audits of an employer's records.I7
and when acting pursuant to a specific mandate con-
tained within a collective-bargaining agreement.' s
These factors are totally absent in the case now
before us. Indeed, nothing in the collective-bargain-
ing agreement authorizes the trustees to speak for Re-
spondent Union or to decide any matter bearing on
the right to strike. To the contrary, paragraph 16(a)
specifically states that Respondent Union, not the
trustees, shall have the right to withhold services. In
these circumstances, the trust fund administrator's
threat of a renewed notice to Respondent Union. con-
" Chairman Fanning dissents from this finding. He has previously stated
his position that the mere existence ofself-enforcement features in a contract
does not serve to remove the protection accorded that contract by the con-
struction industry proviso to Sec. 8(e). See e.g., his dissenting opinion in the
Muskegon case, cited In fn. 10. supra Accordingly, he would dismiss the
complaint in its entirety
t 29 U.S.C. §186(c).
is Lamb v. C(arev. 498 F2d 789. 793 (D.C.Cir. 1974). cert. denied 419 U.S.
869.
"'Jacob Transfer, Inc., 227 NLRB 1231 (1977);: United Brotherhowd f (Car-
penters and Joiners of America. Local 1913, AFL (10, et al (Fixtures
Unlimited), 213 NLRB 363, fn. I (1974). enfd in part, reversed in relevant
part. and modified in part 531 F2d 424 (9th Cir. 1976).
L & ,U Carpetr Contractors, Inc. 218 NLRB 802 (1975).
I Local 80. Sheer Metal Workers International Associaturon. A Fl. CIO. e
al (Turner-Brooks. Inc.), 161 NLRB 229 (1966)
cerning the latter's right to strike under the contract
because of the tailure to pay accrued delinquencies.
constitutes no more than the igorous exercise of the
fiduciary powers and responsibilities entrusted to him
for the sole and exclusive benefit of employees. lFur-
ther, the act that the interests of the administrator in
this case harmonize with or parallel those of the trust
settlors does not in itself give rise to an agency rela-
tionship between them. Accordingly, we find that nei-
ther the trust funds' administrator nor his counsel
were acting as agents of Respondent 1 nion while en-
gaging in the conduct complained of and that. there-
fore. Respondent Union did not violate Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
ORDER'
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National abor
Relations Act, as amended, the National .abor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent. Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers. l.ocal 1Inion
No. 12. Los Angeles. California. its officers. agents.
and representatives. shall:
1. Cease and desist from entering into. maintain-
ing, giving effect to. or enforcing article . section B.
paragraphs 15 through 16(a), of its master labor
agreement, to the extent found unlawful herein bh
reason of the self-enforcement provisions, or from en-
tering into, maintaining, giving effect to. or enforcing
any other contract or agreement. express or implied.
whereby AGC. BIA. and EGCCA. on behalf of their
employer-members or employers represented b'
them, agree to cease or refrain from doing business
with any other person in violation of Section 8(e) of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2°
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 21. after being duly signed
by an authorized representative of Respondent
Union. shall be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
i, The Charging Parties request an affirmatise order requiring reimburse-
ment for payments made. under the provisions herein found unlau tul. as a
result of subcontractor delinquencies Because we find that these pay ments
were not involuntarily exacted b unlawful means. hut were anctioned hby
the contract to which they voluntarily agreed. we deem such an order nap-
propriate See General Longshore Workers. IL4 Local Io 1418. and General
Lingshore 'Workers ILA Local %o 1419 (E Harris Mercer) 235 Nl.RB 161,
fn. 25 (1978). Cf International Union qo Operating Engineers. L.ocal nlion
So 12 (Acco Construclion Equipment, In)., 204 NL.RB 742. fn. 3 (11973).
reversed in relevant part 51 I F 2d 848 (9th Cir. 1975). where the respondent
also engaged In conduct iolatie ofr Sec 8(hb4{i),IB) of the Act
2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a I nited
States Court of Appeals. the words n the notice reading "Posted bh Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Entorcing an Order ,it the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
1125
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD)
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent Union to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent Union has taken to comply
herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WIIl. NOT enter into, maintain, give effect
to, or enforce article , section B. paragraphs 15
through 16(a), of our master labor agreement, to
the extent found unlawful because of the self-
enforcement provisions contained therein.
WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain, give effect
to, or enforce any other contract or agreement,
express or implied, whereby Associated General
Contractors of California, Inc., Building Indus-
try Association of California, Inc., and Engineer-
ing and Grading Contractors Association, Inc.,
on behalf of their employer-members or employ-
ers represented by them, agree to cease or refrain
from doing business with any other person in
violation of Section 8(e) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
INTERNATIONAL UNION ()F OPERAIIN(; EN-
GINEERS LOCAIL UNION No. 12
] 126