Iron Workers Local 606

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 584 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Iron Workers Local Union No. 606 and L. R. Foy
Construction Co., Inc. Case 17-CP-112
June 25, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND KENNEDY
On March 30, 1971, Trial Examiner David S. David-
son issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at-
tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Re-
spondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party
filed an answering brief.
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 powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Re-
spondent, Iron Workers Local Union No. 606, Hutch-
inson, Kansas, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID S. DAVIDSON, Trial Examiner: Pursuant to a
charge filed on August 27, 1970, by L. R. Foy Construction
Co., Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Employer, a com-
plaint issued on November 13, 1970, alleging that since Au-
gust 10, 1970, Respondent has picketed a jobsite of the Em-
ployer with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to
recognize or bargain with Respondent as representative of the
Employer's metal building division employees in violation of
Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. In its answer Respondent de-
nies the commission of any unfair labor practices.
A hearing was held before me in Hutchinson, Kansas, on
January 7, 1971. At the conclusion of the hearing oral argu-
191 NLRB No. 113
ment was waived, and the parties were given leave to file
briefs which have been received from all parties.'
Upon the entire record in this case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
L. R. Foy Construction Co., Inc., is engaged in general
building and construction work, including the construction of
metal buildings in and around Hutchinson, Kansas. In the
course and conduct of its business, the Employer annually
sells goods and materials and performs services valued in
excess of $500,000, of which in excess of $50,000 is for cus-
tomers located outside the State of Kansas. The Employer is
now, and at all times material herein has been, engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent, Iron Workers Local Union No. 606, is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
1. The 1967 agreement between the Employer and
Respondent
In September 1967, the Employer had construction con-
tracts for the Hutchinson National Bank and for the Metho-
dist Home in Hutchinson. Both jobs required the services of
ironworkers. In September, Respondent's business agent,
Wayne Cole,' visited the Employer's president, Lyle R. Foy,
to discuss the manning of these jobs. Cole told Foy that he
had come to see if he could furnish ironworkers for these two
jobs, and Foy replied that he needed ironworkers for them.
Cole asked Foy to enter into a stipulation agreeing to bind the
Employer to the existing agreement between the AGC of
Wichita, Inc., and Respondent. Foy said that he wanted to
limit any agreement to the two specific jobs, and Cole in-
dicated that he only wanted to cover those two jobs or similar
large projects. Cole pointed out that the stipulation was
necessary because otherwise the Employer would not be able
to pay benefits into the Union's health and welfare fund
without evidence of a contract. Cole also told Foy that if the
Employer secured any other large jobs he should sign similar
I Following the close of the hearing, the General Counsel and the Charg-
ing Party filed motions to correct the transcript. Respondent objects to four
of the corrections requested in these motions. The General Counsel requests
that p. 35, 11. 22-23, which read, "He said, 'I would like to talk about it a
little more in coverage,' " be corrected to read, "He said, `I would like to
talk about one with a little more in coverage.' " The Charging Party requests
that the quoted portion be corrected to read, "He said, 'I would like to talk
about a little more coverage."' Respondent contends that the transcript
correctly reflects the testimony of the witness. I have asked the reporter to
recheck her notes as to this sentence, and she has confirmed that the tran-
script accurately reflects her notes as taken at the hearing. Although as
indicated below, I am satisfied that the requested changes are consistent
with the import of the witness' testimony, I am not satisfied that the tran-
script maccurately reflects what the witness stated and deny the request to
correct this portion of the transcript. The other corrections requested appear
to be warranted, and with the one exception noted, the motions are granted.
The motions of the General Counsel and Charging Party have been marked
as Trial Examiner's Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively and are received in evi-
dence herein.
Cole resigned as business agent of Respondent on October 29, 1970,
and died before the commencement of the hearing.
IRON WORKERS LOCAL 606 585
stipulations for these jobs so that Respondent would provide
men for them . Foy indicated that he would talk to his attor-
ney and let Cole know what he would do . Cole gave him a
copy of the stipulation which he wanted signed.
During their conversation , there was some discussion of
the Employer's metal building division . That division sells
and erects metal buildings of various kinds. The division
employs an average of approximately five employees in the
field, and the Employer has a superintendent and three job
foremen which it retains on its payroll full-time for this divi-
sion . Foy told Cole that he didn 't want to include the metal
building division employees under any agreement because his
competition was nonunion and paid below the Union 's scale.
Cole said that he did not expect the Employer to employ
Respondent 's members in the metal building division until
the rest of the competition signed up, when he would expect
the Employer to do the same.
Shortly after his meeting with Cole, Foy discussed the
stipulation with his attorney , and after making an addition to
it, Foy signed the stipulation and returned it to Cole, who also
signed it . In the stipulation , the Employer agreed with Re-
spondent to be bound by the terms of the existing collective-
bargaining agreement between Respondent and the AGC of
Wichita, Inc. The language added by the Employer provided
specifically that the stipulation applied only to the Methodist
Home and Hutchinson National Bank jobs. The stipulation
was dated October 5, 1967.
After sending the stipulation to Respondent , the Employer
asked Respondent to send ironworkers to the two jobs, and
they were sent as needed.
2. The 1969 agreement
In April 1969 , the Employer obtained another contract of
substantial size for construction of a housing project in South
Hutchinson, Kansas. The Employer prepared another stipu-
lation , dated May 1, 1969, similar to the one it had previously
signed , providing that it applied to the South Hutchinson
housing project job only. Foy signed it, and sent it to Cole.
Cole did not return a signed copy to the Employer, but when
the Employer thereafter called Respondent for men for the
job, Respondent sent them , and the Employer made the
requisite contributions to Respondent 's health and welfare
fund.
3. The 1970 agreement and discussions between
Respondent and the Employer before August 10
In June 1970, the Employer obtained a contract for the
construction of an addition to the courthouse in Hutchinson,
Kansas. Foy prepared another stipulation similar to those
previously entered into, signed it, and sent it to Cole. This
stipulation provided that it applied to the courthouse addition
project only . Cole again did not return a signed copy to Foy,
but it was stipulated at the hearing that the contract stipula-
tion signed by Foy was a valid and binding agreement be-
tween the parties.
Work on the courthouse addition project began on July 1,
1970 , and was scheduled for completion 1 year later. The
Employer was the general contractor and employed several
crafts directly at the site, pursuant to union contract. Some
of the work on the job was subcontracted to electrical and
mechanical subcontractors.
Sometime in early July, Cole visited the jobsite where he
found Robert Goss, the job supervisor , and Richard Warner,
the labor foreman, on the job at work tying columns. Cole
asked Goss if they were going to need ironworkers on the job.
Goss replied that they would at a later date . Cole then asked
Goss if he and Warner were going to get off the rods and stop
tying steel themselves. Goss said that they would.
On July 9 in the afternoon , Cole visited Foy at his Hutchin-
son office. Cole said that he was in town to sign up another
contractor . Foy wished him luck and asked Cole what he
could do for him. Cole said that he was there to talk about
the courthouse addition job. Foy said that he had already sent
in a stipulation covering that job and asked what more he
could do. Cole replied that he wanted to talk about one with
a little more in coverage.' They then discussed the metal
building division and small jobs performed by the Employer
throughout the area. Cole asked how they were going to settle
it, and Foy replied that he thought the only thing they could
do was go with the existing contract stipulation . Cole replied
that he was probably right, and said that he would go back
to his office, talk to his attorney , and see if anything could be
done. He stated that in the meantime they would have to
continue under the stipulation because it made it legal for
them to pay health and welfare benefits under the contract.
Foy indicated agreement with that approach , and Cole said
that he would talk to his attorney and come back in a few
weeks. Cole did not contact Foy thereafter.
Shortly after Cole's visit to the jobsite, Goss called Re-
spondent and asked to have an ironworker sent to the job.
When one did not appear, Goss asked Fred Brown , the Em-
ployer 's vice-president and production manager , to assist him
in getting an ironworker on the job. Brown made several
telephonic requests to Respondent and finally on July 14, an
ironworker, Karl Harold, was sent to the job . Harold worked
approximately 7 hours that day. Goss observed him during
the day, and concluded that Harold was not producing
enough work . At the end of the day, he instructed his assis-
tant to have Harold 's check made out and to lay him off the
job.
On the following day or shortly thereafter, Goss spoke to
Cole and again requested that an ironworker be sent to the
job. He asked for someone who could read plans and produce.
Cole replied that Goss should have given Harold a day or two
more to demonstrate that he could do the job. Cole did not
say whether he would or would not send another man to the
job, and in fact another man was never sent . Goss did not call
Cole again, but he asked Brown to do so, and shortly there-
after Brown called Cole to request another man. Cole said
that Harold had worked on jobs for other contractors and
there had never been any complaint. Cole asked Brown when
the Employer was going to send in an agreement for the job.
Brown said he was sure that one had already been sent in, but
that he would check with Foy to make sure. Brown did not
talk to Cole about dispatching a man to the job thereafter,
and Respondent did not send anyone to the job.
Thereafter , the Employer made one further attempt to hire
an ironworker for the job. Brown spoke to an ironworker who
had worked for the Employer in the past. The ironworker
said he would have to check with Cole as he was then on a
job. He later informed Brown that Cole had told him that he
could not come to work on the Employer 's project until he
found a replacement for himself on the job on which he was
then working . He never came.
J Although the General Counsel and the Charging Party moved to cor-
rect the portion of the transcript concerning this statement to make Foy's
testimony more grammatically clear and I have denied their motions in this
respect, Foy's testimony as it stands on the record and as I understood it
at the time is clear that Cole told Foy that he wanted to talk about additional
coverage beyond that provided in the stipulation signed by Respondent. Foy
was not cross-examined as to this conversation , and there is no suggestion
in his testimony that Cole's statements to Foy had any other meaning.
Although Cole's death made it impossible for Respondent to offer any other
version of this conversation, I am persuaded that Foy testified credibly.
586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After Harold was released, work on the project continued,
and Goss and several others tied steel as needed. Such work
would normally have been performed by an ironworker.
4. The picketing at the courthouse
addition jobsite
On August 10, a picket appeared at the courthouse addi-
tion jobsite a little after 8 in the morning wearing a sign which
read: "ON STRIKE, NO CONTRACT, IRON WORKERS
LOCAL NO. 606, 1716 EAST LINCOLN, WICHITA,
KANSAS, AF of L-CIO."
The jobsite was located on the northeast corner of the
intersection of First and Jefferson Streets in Hutchinson. The
courthouse on which the addition was being built fronted on
First Street. The service and delivery entrance to the jobsite
was at an alley which opens onto Jefferson Street. The side-
walk, next to the project site on Jefferson Street was blocked
by a barricade. On August 10, and again on August 11, the
picket walked in the street along the side of the project facing
Jefferson Street.
On August 12, the words "Foy Const. Co." were added at
the top of the picket sign, and the picketing continued on an
almost daily basis through October 1, although on some days
the picket did not stay at the jobsite for the full day. From
August 12 through October 1, the picket walked along Jeffer-
son Street approximately 70 to 75 percent of the time, and the
rest of the time he walked along First Street in front of the
project.
On August 12, Brown, the Employer's vice president, was
at the jobsite and saw Cole, who was picketing that day.
Brown asked Cole what he was doing there. Cole replied that
he was short of manpower and had to picket himself. Cole
asked where Foy was, and Brown replied that he was some-
where in Colorado. Cole stated that he guessed Foy's business
there was more important than what was happening at the
jobsite. They had no further conversation. No representative
of the Employer had further contact with Cole or Respondent
thereafter.
On the first day of the picketing a laborer and two carpen-
ters and an undisclosed number of electricians left the job. On
August 20, two other employees left the jobsite, and plumbers
also did not work behind the picket line. None of the trades-
men returned to work until after the picketing ended. On
three occasions, drivers refused to deliver materials to the
jobsite, and the Employer made arrangements to bring them
to the site with its own employees. Other deliveries were
made with the drivers parking their trucks in the street next
to the jobsite' and leaving them while the Employer's em-
ployees unloaded them.
B. Concluding Findings
Section 8(b)(7)(C) makes it an unfair labor practice for a
labor organization to picket any employer with an object of
forcing or requiring the employer to recognize or bargain
with a labor organization as the representative of his em-
ployees where the picketing has been conducted without a
representation petition being filed within a reasonable period
of time not to exceed 30 days from the commencement of the
picketing, unless the labor organization is currently certified
as the representative of the employees. By proviso this section
exempts from its scope picketing for the purpose of truthfully
advising the public that an employer does not employ mem-
bers of, or have contract with, a labor organization, unless an
effect of the picketing is to induce any individual employed
by any other person in the course of his employment not to
pick up, deliver, or transport any goods or not to perform any
services.
The principal issue in this case is whether the picketing
which started at the courthouse addition jobsite on August 10
and continued through October 1 was for a proscribed object
of recognition or bargaining. The General Counsel and
Charging Party contend that the object of the picketing was
to force or require the Employer to recognize and bargain
with Respondent as representative of its metal building divi-
sion employees.
There are factors present which support this contention.
Thus, the sign carried at the jobsite at all times indicated that
Respondent was on strike because it had no contract with the
Employer. While Respondent had a contract covering per-
formance of ironwork at the jobsite, the legend on the sign
was nonetheless meaningful in the light of the interest ex-
pressed by Respondent's business agent in representing the
employees of the Employer's metal building division who
were not covered by a contract at the time of the picketing.
It is true that in 1967 Cole had indicated that he would wait
until the Employer's competitors in the metal building busi-
ness were organized before asking the Employer to extend
recognition for these employees. However, approximately a
month before the picketing started Cole visited' Foy and ex-
pressed interest in a contract with additional coverage and
discussed the metal building division employees. The matter
was temporarily resolved by agreement to proceed for the
time being on the basis of the existing stipulation, but Cole
indicated that he would talk with his attorney and be back in
a few weeks. Several weeks later the picketing started.
Respondent contends that the evidence is not sufficient to
establish an unlawful object of the picketing and that it shows
instead that the object of the picketing was to protest viola-
tions of its contract with the Employer covering the perform-
ance of ironwork at the jobsite. Although there is evidence
that before the picketing began Cole became concerned over
the performance of ironwork on the job by supervisors and
the discharge of ironworker Harold after only 1 day on the
job, the circumstances of the picketing are more consistent
with the object urged by the General Counsel and Employer
than with the protest over contract violations urged by Re-
spondent. The contract stipulation covering the job bound the
Employer and Respondent to the terms of the existing AGC
of Wichita, Inc., contract. That contract contained a four-
step grievance procedure culminating in binding arbitration
by a neutral arbitrator. Although Cole mentioned his concern
over both alleged contract violations to Foreman Goss and
mentioned to the Employer's Vice President Brown that he
had never had complaints about Harold before, even if these
conversations are most liberally construed as grievances,
there is no evidence of any further attempt to process griev-
ances over these matters through the procedure, and Cole did
not communicate further with the Employer about these mat-
ters during the period between Brown's last attempt to have
an ironworker sent to the job and the beginning of the picket-
ing. If the picketing were aimed at protesting contract viola-
tions, one would expect at the very least that before it com-
menced more affirmative efforts would have been made to
utilize the contractual procedures to remedy the alleged vio-
lations. Instead, Respondent started to picket with no ad-
vance communication or even subsequent communication of
its purpose, utilizing a sign which stated the absence of a
contract as its cause rather than any alleged contract viola-
tion.
Admittedly, Respondent was handicapped in the presenta-
tion of its defense by the demise of Cole shortly before the
hearing. But it is not necessary to rely solely upon the conver-
sations between Cole and the Employer's representatives to
draw the inference that the picketing had an organizational
and recognitional objective. The sign carried in itself supports
IRON WORKERS LOCAL 606 587
that inference.' It is also significant that despite the fact that
the picketing continued for close to 2 months, January, who
was president of Respondent at the time of the picketing and
succeeded Cole as its business agent, testified that Cole never
told him the purpose of the picketing, and no other evidence
was adduced to show that Cole ever discussed the purpose of
the picketing with anyone. In normal experience picketing
with a sign like that used by Respondent in this case and
unaccompanied by any other communication of its purpose
is usually encountered where an object of the picketing is to
gain recognition and bargaining and not where its object is to
secure redress of contractual grievances.
Accordingly, I conclude from the wording of the sign car-
ried by the picket and the circumstances set forth above that
an object of the picketing at the courthouse addition jobsite
was to secure recognition and bargaining for the Employer's
unrepresented metal building division employees.'
The evidence also shows that Respondent was not the cer-
tified representative of the Employer's metal building division
employees and that no petition was filed within a reasonable
time following commencement of the picketing.'
The evidence shows further that much of the picketing
occurred along the side of the project where the delivery
entrance was located and the sidewalk was obstructed, de-
spite the availability of a sidewalk in front of the project
where informational picketing could have more easily taken
place. In addition, the evidence shows that the picketing not
only interfered with normal deliveries to the jobsite but that
it also caused employees in several trades to stop work at the
jobsite for the duration of the picketing.
Accordingly, I conclude that the picketing at the jobsite
from August 10 to October 1 fell within the proscription of
Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, was not'exempted from it as
Local Union 429, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO (Sam M. Melson d/b/a Sam Melson, General Contractor), 138
NLRB 460.
' An alternative explanation for the picketing suggested by Cole's ques-
tions to Foy and Brown is that Cole remained under the impression that the
Employer had not signed a contract stipulation covering the courthouse
addition job and caused the Employer to be picketed to obtain the stipula-
tion. However that object, also unlawful, is negated by the referral of Harold
to the job, the remission of a health and welfare fund payment to Respond-
ent for Harold, and the stipulation at the hearing that there was a valid and
binding contract stipulation in effect for this job. In reaching the conclusion
that an object of the picketing was to secure recognition and bargaining for
the metal building division employees, I have not relied upon the refusal of
Respondent's counsel to testify when called as a witness by the General
Counsel. The cases relied upon by the General Counsel in urging that an
inference be drawn from that refusal are not apposite. The General Counsel
offered to prove that if counsel for the Respondent had testified, he would
have testified to an admission by Cole during an interview by counsel for
the General Counsel in the presence of Respondent's counsel The offer of
proof is not a substitute for enforcement of a subpena to compel Respond-
ent's counsel to testify or for obtaining the requisite permission for counsel
for the General Counsel to testify concerning the alleged admission.
6 In its brief Respondent has requested that judicial notice be taken of a
petition in Case 17-RM-433, filed on August 27, 1970, by the Employer.
Respondent does not contend that this petition was directed to the metal
division employees but alleges to the contrary in its brief that in the repre-
sentation proceeding it filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground
that the Employer had already granted recognition to Respondent by its
agreement with respect to the courthouse addition job. In addition it appears
that no hearing or election was ever held and that withdrawal of the petition
was permitted on request of the Employer on November 6, 1970. Although
I have taken notice of the petition I find in these circumstances that it does
not constitute a defense to picketing aimed at securing recognition and
bargaining for the metal building division employees. In this connection so
that the record will be complete I have received as Trial Examiner's Exhibits
3, 4, 5, and 6 herein an Order To Show Cause dated February 10, 1971, and
the responses of the General Counsel, the Employer, and the Respondent,
respectively.
informational picketing , and therefore violated Section
8(b)(7)(C).'
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of L. R.
Foy Construction Co., Inc., described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. L. R. Foy Construction Co., Inc., is an employer en-
gaged in commerce or in industry affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Iron Workers Local Union No. 606 is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By picketing L. R. Foy Construction Co., Inc., since on
or about August 10, 1970, with an object of forcing or requir-
ing Foy to recognize or bargain with it as representative of
Foy's metal building division employees , without having filed
a petition under Section 9(c) within a reasonable period of
time, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act which affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions
of law , and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:'
ORDER
Respondent, Iron Workers Local Union No. 606, its offic-
ers, representatives, and agents, shall:
1. Cease and desist from picketing or causing to be picketed
L. R. Roy Construction Co., Inc., Hutchinson, Kansas,
where an object thereof is forcing or requiring L. R. Foy
Construction Co., Inc., to recognize or bargain with said
Respondent as representative of its employees in circum-
stances violative of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
17, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre-
' Local Union 429, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO (Sam M. Melson), supra; Local 3, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Jack Picoult), 144 NLRB 5
8 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes.
' 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 OR-
DER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD."
588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt Foy Construction Co., Inc., Hutchinson, Kansas, with
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days an object of forcing or requiring Foy to recognize or
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where bargain with us as representative of Foy's employees in
notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps circumstances violative of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to said
Regional Director for posting by L. R. Foy Construction Co.,
Inc., if willing, at all places where notices to its employees are
customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.10
11 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed L. R.
Dated By
IRON WORKERS
LOCAL
UNION
No. 606
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 610
Federal Building, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Mis-
souri 64106, Telephone 816-374-5181.