Local 1136, Int'L Laborers Union Of North America (Southern Illinois Builders Association)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1985

276 N.L.R.B. 1396 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 1136, International Laborers Union of North
America (Southern Illinois Builders Association)
and Joe C. Moore. Case 14-CB-6273
30 September 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 29 March 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge 's rulings, findings, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order,
as modified.
AMENDED REMEDY
The judge recommended that discriminatee
Archie Moore be awarded backpay and benefits,
with interest, from 26 July through 19 September
1984, the period during which Moore remained at
the top of the Respondent Union's referral list but
was discriminatorily denied referrals. The judge
further recommended that the Union be ordered to
return Moore to the top of the current referral list,
in view of his finding that Moore stopped signing
the referral list after 13 September 1984 because of
the continuing discrimination against him.
We find no basis for tolling the Respondent's
backpay liability to Moore as of 19 September 1984
in light of the continuing unlawful discrimination
which made futile any attempts by him to secure
employment through the Respondent's referral
system even after that date. Consequently, we
delete from the remedy any reference to a specific
terminal date for backpay to Moore. Recognizing
the great variety of employment patterns in con-
struction industry union referral situations, we
leave determination of a specific backpay formula
for Moore to the compliance stage of this proceed-
ing. In addition, we leave to compliance, for con-
sideration in conjunction with the backpay formula
chosen, the determination of what placement
within the Respondent's referral system will make
Moore whole.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Local 1136,
International Laborers Union of North America,
Mount Vernon, Illinois, its officers, agents, and
representatives shall take the action set forth in the
Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraphs 2(a),
(b), and (c).
"(a) Make Archie Moore whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of
the discrimination against him, in the manner set
forth in the amended remedy section of this Deci-
sion and Order.
"(b) Refer him to employment on a nondiscrim-
inatory basis as long as he is properly registered.
"(c) Notify him in writing that it will refer him
to employment on a nondiscriminatory basis."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and had ordered us to post and abide by this
notice.
WE WILL NOT cause any employer to deny em-
ployment to Archie Moore or any other applicant
by discriminatorily failing to refer him.
WE WILL NOT fail to refer Archie Moore or any
other person for questioning the business agent's
operation of the referral system.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make Archie Moore whole for any
loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from
our failure to refer him when he was at the top of
the referral list.
WE WILL refer him on a nondiscriminatory basis.
WE WILL notify him in writing that we will refer
him on a nondiscriminatory basis.
LOCAL 1136, INTERNATIONAL LA-
BORERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
Michael T. Jamison, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Larry J. Levine, Esq ., of St. Louis , Missouri , for the Re-
spondent.
Joe C. Moore, the Charging Party.
276 NLRB No. 157
LABORERS LOCAL 1136 (SOUTHERN ILLINOIS BUILDERS) 1397
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, February 4, 1985.
The charge was filed October 30, 1984' (amended De-
cember 11), and the complaint was issued December 12.
After the issuance of the complaint, alleging the un-
lawful failure of the Union to refer Archie Moore (a
black, nonunion registrant) through the Union's exclusive
referral system, Business Manager Lawrence Tolley al-
tered the referral lists and gave obviously fabricated tes-
timony at the trial. The primary issue is whether the
Union, the Respondent, discriminatorily failed to refer
Moore in violation of Section 8(b)('^(A) and (2) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
On the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of the
General Counsel's brief-in the absence of a brief from
the Union-I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Southern Illinois Builders Association (:SBA) is com-
posed of employers engaged in the construction industry.
They annually receive goods valued over $50,000 direct-
ly from outside the State. The Union, which represents
employees of SIBA members, admits and I find that
SIBA is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Union is a party to a building agreement with
SIBA (G.C. Exh. 3), a highway agreement with Wabash
Valley Construction Association and the Associated
General Contractors of Illinois (G.C. Exh. 4), and agree-
ments with other contractors that have adopted these
agreements, all effective from April 1, 1982, until March
31, 1985. The Union admits that under these agreements,
it maintains an exclusive referral system.
In an earlier proceeding, Laborers Local 1136 (Southern
Illinois Builders), Case 14-CB-5089, JD-471-81 (Sept. 23,
8981), Administrative Law Judge Schwarzbart found
that the Union violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) in
1980 by refusing to register and refer 22 black non-
members because of their lack of membership, their race,
and their protests regarding Business Manager Tolley's
operation of the job referral system. Judge Schwarzbart
found that Tolley was "unworthy of belief' and discred-
ited his testimony that conflicted with that of other wit-
nesses. (G.C. Exh. 5.) No exceptions were filed.
The present proceeding involves another black non-
member of the Union.
I All dates are in 1984 unless otherwise indicated
B. No Referrals from Top of List
In the summer of 1984, after being unemployed over a
year, Archie Moore sought employment through the
Union's same exclusive referral system. Each Thursday
he went to the union office in the Mt. Vernon labor
temple, signed the referral list on the line designated by
Business Agent Tolley, and paid the $3 weekly registra-
tion fee that the Union charged nonmembers. (On
Wednesday evenings Tolley decided on which of the
numbered lines, in the notebook used as a referral list,
the registrants should sign the next morning. As Tolley
explained, if a registrant "hasn't worked or been referred
out more than three days, then he either moves up or
stays where he's at." (Tr. 132.))
On June 28 Moore had a heated argument with Tolley
over Moore's position on the referral list. Believing that
registrants lower than he on the list were being referred
ahead of him, Moore asked why Tolley was "switching
the names around and putting other people's names in
my place," and why his name had been advancing by
five lines a week on the list until "I got in the top 10,"
and then "they started jumping three" (Tr. 27). (Moore
was evidently mistaken about registrants being referred
out by fives, instead of individually as calls were re-
ceived from the contractors.) Tolley became very angry
and said "no black guy was going to tell him who to
send out" (Tr. 28). Moore had already signed his name
and home telephone number (that week on line 8), but
had not paid the $3 registration fee to office secretary
Rosalee Tolley, Tolley's wife. Tolly told Moore to "Get
out of the office," but Moore refused to leave, stating he
was not done with his business yet. (Tr. 29-30.)
As Moore walked toward Mrs. Tolley to pay her the
money, Tolley arose, came from behind the desk, and
"was going to make me leave. I told him you can't make
me leave because I have business there. I was spending
my money trying to get a jo' " (Tr. 31.) Both were
using loud language (Tr. 71) and each accuses the other
of cursing. When Moore refused to leave (as Moore cre-
dibly testified), Tolley grabbed a big stick from behind
his desk and walked toward Moore with the stick raised
in his hand. One of the other registrants or friends of
Tolley who were present (none of whom testified)
stepped between them and Moore ran from the office
(Tr. 32, 71-72.)
Moore went to his car, put a plastic-coated bicycle
chain in his back pocket for protection, and returned to
the office to pay the fee (Tr. 33). By this time Tolley had
"calmed down," and Moore proceeded to pay the money
and get his receipt (Tr. 34). As he was leaving the labor
temple, the police arrived and arrested him. Tolley
charged him with battery. (Tr. 38.) On September 12 a
jury found Moore not guilty after a 2-day trial (Tr. 39,
54). Meanwhile Moore continued to sign his name and
telephone number on the line designated by Tolley, and
to pay the weekly registration fee, without any difficulty.
For an 8-weak period, from the weeks beginning July
26 through September 13, Moore was at the top of the
referral list (G.C. Exhs. 2A and 2B). Although Tolley
followed the practice of making referrals by telephone
1398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and although Moore continued to wait at home for a re-
ferral, Tolley never referred him to a job.
When asked at the trial why he failed to sign up after
September 13, Moore credibly explained that "my
money was getting low plus I know he wasn't going to
refer me out to work" (Tr. 61). (Moore impressed me by
his demeanor on the stand as an honest, forthright wit-
ness.)
In the Union's defense, Business Agent Tolley claimed
that he made many unsuccessful attempts to reach
Moore by telephone to refer him to jobs between July 26
and September 19. He claimed that "maybe 15 or 20
times," when he was unable to reach Moore in the eve-
nings, he called Moore back the next morning (Tr. 258).
But before ruling on this defense, I consider his credibil-
ity
C. Fabricated Testimony
Business Agent Tolley obviously gave fabricated testi-
mony when he testified about the June 28 incident.
On examination by the company counsel, Tolley
claimed that when Moore came in that morning, "He
was swinging his arms making his way over to my desk"
(Tr. 228). Later, upon examination by the General Coun-
sel, he testified that yes, Moore "came in flailing [or
swinging] his arms," and that Moore was "acting up or
rambunctious . . . from the time he entered the door"
and "walking in an unstable manner" (Tr. 269-270).
Tolley then changed his testimony and admitted that he
"wasn 't paying a whole lot of attention" when Moore
entered. Rosalee Tolley later testified that when Moore
came in , Tolley was talking to other men in the office
and "then just told Archie where to sign the book" (Tr.
305). She testified that she spoke to Moore and he spoke
to her when he entered the office, and he was "all right
until he started signing" the refferal list and "started
asking Tolley these questions" (Tr. 304, 352).
Tolley claimed that during the argument Moore "start-
ed to coming at me . . . with his fist drawed back. . . . I
at that time raised my arm up to protect my neck
[Tolley had had a tracheotomy]. He struck me in the
arm and I told Rosalee to call the law." (Tr. 230.) Un-
doubtedly if Moore had struck her husband, Mrs. Tolley
would have remembered it. She testified at length, giving
her version of what happened, but nowhere claimed that
Moore had even touched Tolley (Tr. 306-322). (Moore
credibly denied striking Tolley (Tr. 36).)
Business Agent Tolley also fabricated other testimony.
He claimed that when Moore returned from his car with
the bicycle chain, the policeman was already there and
as Moore "was headed inside my office with the chain"
in his hand raised as high as his head, "the police
reached up and grabbed . . . his arm" and arrested him
(Tr. 230-236). To the contrary, Mrs. Tolley testified that
Moore returned from his car, entered the office, and left
the building before the police arrested him.
It was obvious that Mrs. Tolley was also giving fabri-
cated testimony. She, like Moore, testified that Moore
had the bicycle chain in his back pocket when he re-
turned from his car (Tr. 323) and that the chain was in
his pocket when she gave him his receipt (Tr. 354). But
contrary to Moore's credited testimony that the chain re-
mained in his pocket and contrary to Tolley's claim that
the police arrested Moore before he reentered the office,
Mrs. Tolley claimed that after Moore returned to the
office and stood at her desk, "he got out that chain and
started slinging it around and . . . I didn't know what
was going to happen to all of us in there" (Tr. 324).
She also gave other clearly fabricated testimony. She
positively testified, "I didn't go outside when the police
came. I stayed in the office" and did not see what hap-
pened outside (Tr. 324). Yet she later claimed, contrary
to both Moore 's and Tolley 's testimony , that she saw the
police chase Moore around the parking lot before the
police "finally got ahold of him" and put him under
arrest (Tr. 345).
Both Mr . and Mrs. Tolley impressed me, by their de-
meanor on the stand , as being willing to give whatever
testimony would help the Union 's cause . I find that
much of their testimony was deliberately fabricated.
D. Falsified Referral Records
While Business Agent Tolley was on the stand, claim-
ing that he had made many unsuccessful attempts to
refer Moore by telephone, it was discovered that the
original referral records had been altered since Novem-
ber, when photocopies had been furnished by the union
counsel to the General Counsel (Tr. 170-176). (The
union counsel had received the photocopies from office
secretary Rosalee Tolley, who had made them during
the investigation of an EEOC charge against the Union
(Tr. 298).) The union counsel requested a recess, explain-
ing that "I think the witness has got to be told that . . .
any answer he gives may tend to incriminate him be-
cause it's perjury if, in fact, he did not make the phone
calls.. . ." (Tr. 177). The request was granted.
When Tolley proceeded to testify, despite the warning
by counsel, he not only conceded that the referral
records had been altered, but gave testimony that re-
vealed that he had also falsified the referral lists before
the original photocopies had been made. (He claimed
that "the only way I can . . . answer you truthfully"
about the alterations, "I went back . . . and reconstruct-
ed it to the best of my ability . . . because I knew that I
had called Archie Moore time and time again . . . . "
(Tr. 186). He claimed that it was impossible that he made
the changes after the complaint issued December 12 or
after he received the subpoena to produce the referral
list (G.C. Exh. 7) on January 30, 1985 (Tr. 200-201), and
claimed that he added the material probably 2 days after
receiving a copy of the amended charge (Tr. 203-204).
The formal papers show that the amended charge,
naming Archie Moore, was filed December 11 (G.C.
Exh. 1C); that the complaint was issued December 12
(G.C. Exh. lE); and that copies of the amended charge
and complaint were mailed to Tolley December 12. °
Before the alteration of the referral lists was revealed,
Tolley had testified that the "NA" after Moore's name
indicated that he attempted to telephone Moore but there
was no answer (Tr. 139). The November copy of the re-
ferral lists (G.C. Exh. 2B) shows two NAs after Archie
Moore's signature and telephone number on the August
9 list. The February copy (G.C. Exh. 2A, substituted for
LA13ORERS LOCAL 1136 (SOUTHERN ILLINOIS BUILDERS)
the orginals after the February 4, 1985 trial) shows that
the date "8/14" added before the first NA. When testify-
ing about the two purported telephone calls to Moore
that week (Tr. 214-216), Tolley admitted that all except
one of the referrals were callbacks (who had preference
over other registrants). The one exception was a referral
to a contractor identified as "Jax" who had made a
"Late Call" (in the morning after worktime) on 8/14.
Thus the two NAs after Moore's name, and the added
date of 8/14, could have indicated only attempted refer-
rals by Tolley to Moore on 8/14 to Jax. Tolley positive-
ly testified that he was not able to reach Moore on that
date, but he gave no explanation for attempting twice to
refer Moore on a late call. Finally, when his wife testi-
fied, she revealed that she made referrals in Tolley's ab-
sence (Tr. 355 ) and that she referred another registrant,
Lonnie Townes, on line 10 to Jax on the 8/14 late call
(Tr. 360). (The notations, "8/14 Jax" and "Late Call,"
were in her handwriting .) Mrs. Tolley also revealed that
she never attempted to call Moore that summer (Tr.
357). Therefore, Tolley was not even present when his
wife referred Townes to Jax on August 14; there was no
other contractor to which Tolley could have referred
Moore that week ; and sometime before the November
copy of the referral lists was made , Tolley had falsified
the August 9 referral list by placing two NAs on the list
for purported telephone calls he had not placed to
Moore.
On the August 23 referral list, Tolley had made the
notations, "NA NA 8/29 NA," after Moore's signature
and telephone number, indicating three attempts to call
him that week, the last time on August 29. Tolley posi-
tively testified that he had been unable to reach Moore
on any of these three attempts (Tr. 220). When asked to
what jobs he could have referred Moore if he had been
able to reach him that week, he named only one job, at
Southern Illinois Asphalt Company (SIAC) on August
29 (Tr. 221). He offered no explanation for trying three
times to call Moore to make one referral. Mrs. Tolley
later revealed that she made the referral to SIAC (Tr.
363), indicating that Tolly was not even present on
August 29. Thus at the time, or at least sometime before
the November copy of the referral lists was made,
Tolley falsified the August 23 list by adding three NAs
after Moore's name.
On the February copy of the referral lists, the date
"9/13" has been added to one of the NAs on the Sep-
tember 6 list, indicating that Tolley had attempted to call
Moore that Thursday morning, September 13 (presum-
ably between 6:30 and 8 a.m., before the 8-10 a.m. regis-
tration period). But the only referral on the September 6
list to a job that morning is shown on line 5 to Cotrell
Richardson, whose name is followed by a notation,
"9/12 for 9/13 SIAC." This indicates that the one job
was filled the evening before, and there was no occasion
to place a call to Moore that morning. I therefore find
that the late addition of the September 13 date before
one of the NAs following Moore's name was another fal-
sification.
The November copy of the referral lists shows only
one NA after Moore 's name ("9/17 NA" ) on the Sep-
tember 13 list . The February copy shows that two addi-
1399
tional NAs have been added ("9/13 NA 9/12"). Tolley
gave no explanation for omitting the September 13 NA if
he had in fact attempted to call Moore on that date.
And, of course, he added the date of September 12 on
the wrong referral list. (The September 6 list already
showed two purported September 12 NAs.)
On reviewing the referral lists from July 26 through
September 13, I note that the November copy indicates
that he made a total of 12 purported NAs to Moore (one
during the weeks of July 26, August 30, and September
13; two during the weeks of August 9 and 16 and Sep-
tember 6; and three during the week of August 23). The
additions shown on the February copy include three
dates of purported NAs (as well as four dates before July
26) and three new dated NAs (an additional 9/13 NA on
both the September 6 and 13 lists and an additional 9/12
NA on September 13 list).
After weighing this evidence , I find that Business
Agent Tolley deliberately falsified referral records, both
before and after the issuance of the complaint, to show
attempted referrals that he had not in fact made to
Moore.
E. Further Fabricated Testimony
At one point in Business Agent Tolley's testimony,
when contending that he made a diligent effort to con-
tact Moore by telephone to refer him to available jobs,
he claimed that "maybe 15 or 20 times" he called Moore
back the next morning after being unable contact him in
the evening (Tr. 258). I find that his testimony was
wholly fabricated.
Admittedly, Tolley never mentioned to Moore at any
time between July 26 and September 13 that he was at-
tempting to contact Moore to refer him to jobs-even
though Tolley was present each week when Moore
signed the referral list and paid his registration fee (Tr.
154). Mrs. Tolley was evidently aware that her husband
had no intention of referring Moore, because she never
attempted to call Moore when making referrals in Tol-
ley's absence.
During that entire period of time, Moore was remain-
ing at home waiting for a referral virtually all the time
until about 7:30 or 8 p.m. (Tr. 379). At age 25, he was
living at home with his parents, together with his brother
and sister . His father, mother, and brother worked on
daytime jobs, and his sister worked from 2 to 11 p.m.
One or more of the adults were always present to re-
ceive telephone calls, but the Union never called. There
were three telephones in the home, all on the same line
(with the number Moore placed on the referral slip each
week). Business Agent Tolley claimed that he made
about 50 percent of the calls to Moore in, the morning
and about 50 percent in the evening (Tr. 252). Janet
Moore (Moore's sister) credibly testified that she was at
home every business day in the morning (Tr. 118) She,
like Moore, was certain that Tolley never called.
I discredit Business Agent Tolley's testimony that he
repeatedly attempted to contact Moore by telephone to
refer him to available jobs and agree with the General
Counsel that Tolley's purported attempts were "all fabri-
cated and Tolley never tried to contact Moore at all."
1400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
F. Concluding Findings
As found, Moore was at the top of the Union's referral
list from July 26 to September 20, but Business Agent
Tolley (as well as his wife) never attempted to contact
him to refer him to available jobs.
I agree with the General Counsel that the reason for
the Union's failure to refer Moore was the June 28 inci-
dent at the Union's office, when Moore questioned Busi-
ness Agent Tolley's operation of the exclusive referral
system and Tolley, becoming infuriated, ordered Moore
out of the office and angrily told him that "no black guy
[is] going to tell [me] who to send out." After that inci-
dent, Tolley falsified the referral records to show pur-
ported attempts to make referrals to Moore, even though
Tolley was determined not to refer him.
I find that this was a discriminatory denial of referral
for employment and violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)
of the Act. Longshoremen ILA Local 1408 (Jacksonville
Maritime), 258 NLRB 132, 138 (1981); Electrical Workers
IBEW Local 379 (Fashbach Electric), 230 NLRB 626, 630
(1977).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By discriminatorily failing to refer Archie Moore for
employment through its exclusive referral system, the
Union engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order it
to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having discriminatorily failed to refer
a registrant for employment through its exclusive referral
system, it must make him whole for any lost earnings
and other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from
July 26 to September 19, 1984, as prescribed in F. W
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as
computed in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
Because of the Respondent's failure to refer him for em-
ployment despite his position at the top of the referral
list for 8 consecutive weeks, causing him to stop register-
ing as a futile act, I find it necessary for the Respondent
to return to him to that position at his request.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed2
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
ORDER
The Respondent, Local 1136, International Laborers
Union of North America, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a} Causing any employer to deny employment to
Archie Moore or any other applicant by discriminatorily
failing to refer the person through its exclusive referral
system.
(b) Failing to refer Archie Moore or any other regis-
trant for employment because the person questioned the
business agent's operation of the exclusive referral
system.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make Archie Moore whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against him, in the manner set forth in the remedy
section of this decision.
(b) On his request, return him to the top of the referral
list and refer him to employment on a nondiscriminatory
basis as long as he is properly registered.
(c) Notify him in writing that it will, on his request,
return him to the top of the referral list and refer him to
employment on a nondiscriminatory basis.
(d) Maintain and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all re-
ferral lists and other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its union office copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."3 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after
being signed by the Respondent's authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi-
al.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses. -
a If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board "