Local 264, Laborers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 6, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 40 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 264, Laborers International Union of North
America and J. J. Dalton and Owen Glover, d/b/a
D & G Construction Co. Case 17-CB-1301
January 6, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On .August 13, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Herman Corenman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding . Thereafter, Respondent , Charging
Party, and Intervenor , Builders Association of
Kansas City, filed exceptions and supporting briefs,
and the Charging Party filed a reply 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 herein
modified.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that
Respondent did not violate Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the
Act, as alleged in the complaint , because the
Charging Party made no timely objection to that part
of Respondent's contract proposal designating the
Builders Association of Kansas City, the Intervenor
herein , as the Charging Party's representative in the
administration of the collective -bargaining agree-
ment .2 However , the Charging Party did object to
participating in the Laborers Industry Advancement
Fund, which fund is administered by a committee
appointed by the Intervenor Association . For the
reasons stated by the Administrative Law Judge,
Respondent 's insistence on the Charging Party's
participation in the Industry Advancement Fund
violated Section 8(b)(3). However , as participation in
the fund included the Charging Party's designation
of the Association as its collective-bargaining repre-
i The Administrative Law Judge 's disposition of the issue of the
timeliness of the service upon Respondent of the charge herein is supported
by our decision in Glacier Lincoln-Mercury, 189 NLRB 640, 643 (1971)
7 We find no merit in the Charging Party 's contention that it did object
to being represented generally by the Intervenor in the administration of the
agreement . Its objections were specifically limited to those matters we find
herein to be nonmandatory subjects of bargaining . We do not regard the
letter of protest sent by Charging Party after signing the agreement as
creating an effective objection to such representation.
3 Metropolitan District Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity of the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (McCloskey and
Company), 137 NLRB 1583 (1962).
We note that although Respondent , by its threat of picketing the job,
apparently involved the general contractor to some extent in bringing the
Charging Party to agree to Respondent 's demands, the complaint does not
sentative for the purposes encompassed in the
administration of such fund, and as such designation
was part of the action the Charging Party was forced
to take by Respondent's threat of picketing, we find
that Respondent's conduct also violated Section
8(b)(1)(B).3
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by
insisting to impasse upon certain items that are not
mandatory subjects of bargaining.4 In adopting the
Administrative Law Judge's finding that the Labor-
ers Administrative Expense Account is a nonmanda-
tory subject of bargaining we recognize that it is not
part of the Laborers Industry Advancement Fund,
the latter being a nonmandatory subject under cases
cited by the Administrative Law Judge. We recognize
further that the moneys deposited in the Adminis-
trative Expense Account, unlike those of the Industry
Advancement Fund, are used to administer provi-
sions of the collective-bargaining agreement concern-
ing terms and conditions of employment which are
mandatory subjects of bargaining. But such a
tangential connection with terms and conditions of
employment is insufficient to make a mandatory
subject of bargaining out of a formula for employer
payments into a fund to be used by the employer's
own representative in administering the agreement.
An employer's financial arrangements for compen-
sating or reimbursing its collective-bargaining repre-
sentative is not a matter of employer-employee
relations. It is a matter only of the relations between
the employer and its representative. Such relations
are presumptively outside the scope of mandatory
bargaining.5
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 Respondent,
Local 264, Laborers International Union of North
America, Kansas City, Missouri, its officers, agents,
allege that Respondent violated any of the provisions of Sec 8(b)(4) of the
Act, and no party has contended that any such violations have been
litigated . Similarly, while certain specific acts have been alleged and found
to constitute per se violations of Sec. 8(b)(3), it is not alleged or contended
that Respondent 's conduct constituted an overall refusal to bargain in good
faith . Charging Party's argument that Respondent violated Sec . 8(b)(1)(B)
by spurning Charging Party 's request to delay signing an agreement until its
attorney could discuss certain provisions with Respondent 's representative
would have been more pertinent to an allegation of overall bad-faith
bargaining , in our view, than to an additional violation of Sec . 8(b)(1)(B) in
the circumstances of this case.
4 N.L. R. B. v. Wooster Division of Borg - Warner Corporation, 356 U.S 342
(1958).
5 Cf. N.L.R.B. v Borg-Warner, supra at 350.
216 NLRB No. 4
LOCAL 264, LABORERS 41
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order, as modified herein:
1. Add the following as paragraph 1(b):
"Restraining or coercing J. J. Dalton and Owen
Glover, d/b/a D & G Construction Co. in the
selection of its representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining."
2. Substitute the attached notice for the Adminis-
trative Law Judge' s notice.
examine witnesses , to argue orally on the record, and to file
briefs. Briefs filed by the Charging Party, the Respondent,
and the Intervenor have been carefully considered.
Upon the .basis of the entire record including my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor and the
briefs submitted , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE AND JURISDICTION
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT by threat of picketing or in any
like or related manner restrain or coerce J. J.
Dalton and Owen Glover, d/b/a D & G
Construction Co., in the selection of its represent-
atives for the purposes of collective bargaining.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with J. J.
Dalton and Owen Glover , d/b/a D & G
Construction Co., by insisting on and forcing it to
post a performance bond or to make payments
for the account of the Laborer's Administrative
Expense Account or the Laborer 's Industry
Advancement Fund , or any like or related
program that is not a mandatory subject of
bargaining.
WE WILL reimburse J. J. Dalton and Owen
Glover, d/b/a D & G Construction Co., for all
moneys , if any, paid for the aforesaid perfor-
mance bond or the aforesaid funds.
LOCAL 264, LABORERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF NORTH AMERICA
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN CoRENMAN, Administrative Law Judge: The
instant charge was filed on April 16, 1974, served by
registered mail on April 17, 1974, and received by Local
264, Laborers International Union of North America,
herein called the Respondent, on April 18, 1974. An
amended charge was filed on May 24, 1974. The com-
plaint , issued on May 31, 1974, alleges that the Respondent
has violated Section 8(bXIXB) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act.
The case was heard before me at Kansas City, Kansas,
on June 25, 1974, and all parties appeared by counsel and
participated in the hearing . The parties were given full
opportunity to present evidence, to examine and cross-
At all times material herein, the Charging Party, J. J.
Dalton and Owen Glover d/b/a D & G Construction Co.,
were engaged as a concrete subcontractor on the Willow
Creek Construction project in Kansas City, Missouri,
involving the construction of 500 apartments in an area
comprising 40 acres, by Price Brothers Mortgage Compa-
ny, the general contractor. Price Brothers annually receives
and ships into and from the States of Missouri and Kansas
materials and products valued in excess of $50 ,000. The
Charging Party furnished materials and services to Price
Brothers in 1973 valued in excess of $50,000. The parties
have agreed , and I find , that at all times material herein,
the Charging Party and Price Brothers were engaged in
commerce and in operations affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 264, Laborers International Union of North
America, herein called the Respondent or the Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Respondent Union is party to a collective-bargain-
ing agreement with a multiemployer group who are
represented by and/or are members of the Builders
Association of Kansas City, herein called the Association.
Price Brothers, the general contractor on the Willow Creek
project in Kansas City, Missouri , is not a member of the
Association but is signatory to the collective-bargaining
agreement between the Association and the Respondent.
The agreement is printed in a blue book and is often
referred to as the "Blue Book."
On October 16, 1973, and for some time theretofore,
Dalton, the Charging Party, had been engaged in supply-
ing, pouring, and finishing concrete on the Willow Creek
project under subcontract from Price Brothers , the general
contractor. On October 16, 1973, Dalton employed four
laborers on the project, all of whom were members of the
Respondent Union. On the afternoon of October 16, 1973,
Respondent Union 's field representative, Columbus Sump-
ter, visited the Willow Creek project. He checked to see if
the laborers were in good standing with the Respondent
Union. He also called on Joseph Dalton, the concrete
subcontractor, and asked him to sign a contract stipulation
with the Respondent Union. Sumpter didn't have a copy of
the contract stipulation with him but he told Dalton that
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he would return the next day to have Dalton sign the
contract.'
Dalton's attorney, Mr. Stanford C. Madden, was
formerly employed by the Association, and he had some
familiarity with the contract between the Respondent and
the Association . Dalton testified that on the evening of
October 16, 1973, he called Attorney Madden about the
contract . Madden suggested eliminating the $1,000 security
performance bond and the 3 cents per hour before Dalton
signed the contract.
On the evening of October 16, Union Field Representa-
tive Sumpter phoned Mr. Dale Ludlum, superintendent of
the Willow Creek project, who agreed to set up a meeting
for the following morning at the Willow Creek project
office between Mr. Sumpter , himself, Mr. Price ,2 and Mr.
Dalton . When Sumpter came to the project office on the
morning of October 17, 1973, Price called Dalton to the
office to discuss the matter.
According to Dalton's credible testimony, Mr. Price
started asking Sumpter what was required to have the
matter resolved . Sumpter replied that all that was necessar-
y was for Dalton to sign the "yellow stipulation agree-
ment." Dalton objected to posting the $1,000 bond.
Sumpter told Dalton that in his case the performance bond
would be $500 instead of $ 1,000. When Dalton objected to
paying the 3 cents per hour , Sumpter told him it must
remain in the agreement . Sumpter stated that Union
Business Manager Jarrett had sent him out to get the
contract stipulation signed . Dalton testified credibly that
he suggested that the matter wait so that he and his lawyer,
Mr. Madden, could call at the union office the next
morning and talk to Mr. Jarrett. Mr. Sumpter would not
agree to this . He told the group consisting of Price, Dale
Ludlum , and Dalton that he had been sent out to get the
contract signed or he would have to put a banner on the
job .3 At this juncture, Price, Ludlum, and Dalton retired to
another room where they tried to contact Attorney
Madden without success . Price told Dalton that he could
not afford to have the job shut down. Price told Dalton he
would have to sign the contract or be "fired off the job."
Dalton told Price he would sign the contract under protest.
The three, Dalton, Ludlum, and Price, then returned to
Sumpter in the office . Dalton testified credibly that there
he again asked Sumpter if he and his lawyer could not
come down to the union office the next day and try to
work out something with Business Manager Jarrett.
Sumpter said, "No, I was sent out to either put a banner up
or get this contract signed ." 4 Faced with this threat of a
banner placed on the job unless he signed the contract
stipulation , Dalton signed but said in the presence of Price,
Ludlum , and Sumpter, "I want it understood that I am
signing this under protest."
Dalton further testified credibly, with substantial corrob-
oration from Price, that just prior to his decision to sign,
Sumpter said, "If I don't sign it, he will put a picket up and
r Sumpter testified that he left a blank copy of the contract stipulation in
quadruplicate with Dalton on the afternoon of October 16 as Dalton
wanted to confer with his attorney in the matter.
2 It was important to Price to settle the matter as his contract with the
Respondent Union contained a subcontractor 's clause providing that
subcontractors on the jobsite were required to have a contract with the
Respondent for laborers in their employ on the jobsite.
he said, `Yes, I will.' You'll have a picket out here if I don't
sign it." Sumpter left with the signed contract stipulation
and Price, Ludlum, and Dalton resumed their work.
The contract requirements set forth in the "Blue Book"
to which Dalton , on advice of counsel , objected are
designated by counsel for the General Counsel and by
counsel for the Charging Party as nonmandatory subjects
of bargaining . They may be found at article VIII of the
"Blue Book" (G.C. Exh. 3). Each employee is paid 1 cent
per hour by the employer to the Association (Laborer's
Administrative Expense Account) and 2 cents per hour is
payable for each employee to the account of the Associa-
tion (Laborer's Industry Advancement Fund).
The purpose of this 1-cent contribution is to assist the
Association in partially defraying the costs of furnishing
the management 's share in the establishment , administra-
tion , and enforcement of these programs and toward the
Association's costs in time and effort in establishing and
maintaining all the records provided for in this agreement.
The 2 cents per hour for each employee shall be credited
by the depositary to the account of the Association
(Laborer's Industry Advancement Fund), such fund to be
administered by a committee appointed by the Associa-
tion . This fund is created in general to train and improve
the efficiency of workmen and to improve general
conditions and relationship of the construction industry as
a whole, which shall include , but not be limited to,
industrial relations , public relations , labor relations, safety,
and any other function which is designed to advance and
promote the interests of the building industry generally.
With the signing of the contract stipulation, Dalton
began paying the depositary, Traders National Bank, for
the various fringe benefits set forth in article VIII of the
"Blue Book," the amounts specified, such as for welfare,
pensions , and vacations , but made no payments designated
for the I cent to the account of the Association (Laborer's
Administrative Expense Account ) or 2 cents to the account
of the Association (Laborer's Industry Advancement
Fund). But in December 1973, when the Respondent
Union refused to pay one of Dalton 's laborers his vacation
money until the 3 cents was paid to the two above funds, 1
cent per hour for one fund, and 2 cents per hour for the
other, Dalton began paying the 3 cents per hour to be
allocated to the two funds so that the vacation money
would be paid to his employees . Dalton, however, has not
posted the $500 performance bond to guarantee the
payment of wages and fringe benefit contributions re-
quired by article VIII of the "Blue Book."
The Issues
The issues are as follows:
1. Does the 6-month limitation imposed by Section
10(b) of the Act require that this case be dismissed?
3 Price corroborates Dalton's testimony that on this occasion , Sumpter
threatened to close down the job that day if the contract were not signed by
Dalton . Sumpter's testimony that he made no threat to picket or put a
banner on the job is not credited.
4 The above quote is from the credible testimony of Dalton, with
substantial corroboration from Price who was also present at this
conversation.
LOCAL 264, LABORERS
2. Did the Respondent Union violate Section 8(b)(IXB)
and (3) in forcing Dalton to sign the contract stipulations
by means of Sumpter's threat to picket and close down the
construction project if the contract stipulation was not
signed by Dalton?
A. The 10(b) Issue
Section 10(b) of the Act provides in pertinent part "that
no complaint shall issue based on any unfair labor practice
occurring more than 6 months prior to the filing of the
charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof
upon the person against whom the charge is made."
Section 102.112 of the Board's Rules and Regulations
authorizes service of papers by a party on other parties,
among other means by registered mail.
Section 102.113 of the Board's regulations provides that
the date of service shall be the day the matter served is
deposited in the United States mail or is delivered in
person, as the case may be. In computing the time from
such date, the provisions of Section 102.114 apply.
Section 102.114 of the Board's Rules and Regulations
provides in pertinent part that: "In computing any period
of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, the day of the
act, event, or default after which the designated period of
time begins to run is not to be included, .. .
In the instant case , the alleged unfair labor practices
occurred on October 17, 1973. The unfair labor practice
charge was filed with the Board's Regional Office at
Kansas City, Kansas , on April 16, 1974, deposited in the
United States registered mail by the Regional Office on
April 17 and delivered to the Union on April 18, 1974. It
follows, according to Section 102.114 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations, that the date of October 17, 1973, is not
counted in computing the 6 months. In that case, the
limitation period begins to run on October 18, 1973, and
the last day of the 6-month period is April 17, 1974. As the
charge was filed on April 16, 1974, and served on April 17,
1974, by registered mail (that is, deposited in the United
States mail on that date), the service is timely even though
the mail did not reach the Union's office till April 18, 1974.
1 find therefore that the charge was timely filed and served
within the meaning of Section 10(b) of the Act. See Koppers
Co., 163 NLRB 517 (1967); Luzerne Hide and Tallow
Company, 89 NLRB 989 (1950).
B. The Alleged 8(b)(1)(B) Violation
The General Counsel's complaint alleges in substance
that the Respondent Union by threatening to picket
Dalton unless he signed a contract stipulation to be bound
by the collective-bargaining agreement (Blue Book) be-
tween the Association and the Respondent Union, thereby
violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Acts There is no
evidence, however, in the record to support this allegation.
Dalton made no objection on October 16 or 17 to the fact
that the Association was the employer-representative in the
5 The contract stipulation in essence obligates the signing employer to be
bound by all the provisions of the "Blue Book."
6 Sec . 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act provides that it shall be an unfair labor
practice for a labor organization or its agents to restrain or coerce an
employer in the selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective
43
administration of the collective-bargaining agreement
(Blue Book) and he did not refuse to sign the contract
stipulation for that reason. I find that Dalton was not
restrained or coerced by the Union in the selection of the
Association as his representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. I will
therefore recommend that the 8(b)(1)(B) allegation in the
complaint be dismissed.
C. The 8(b)(3) Allegation
There is substantial and credible evidence to substantiate
the 8(b)(3) allegation of the complaint.? I find on the basis
of the testimony of Dalton and Price that Sumpter, an
agent of the Respondent Union, on October 17, 1973, by
threats of strike action, forced Dalton to sign the contract
stipulation, notwithstanding Dalton objected to the $1,000
or $500 cost-performance bond and the 1-cent and 2-cent
payments to the Laborer's Administrative Expense Ac-
count and the Laborer's Industry Advancement Fund
whose purpose I have noted earlier in this Decision. It is
now well established by Board and court decisions that
these two funds and the performance bond do not fall
within the meaning of wages , hours, and working condi-
tions, and for that reason are not mandatory subjects of
bargaining. Although these subjects may properly be
placed on the bargaining table as permissive subjects of
bargaining, and they may be voluntarily agreed to, it is
impermissible to force agreement on these contract
provisions by picketing, threats of picketing, or other
coercive means . See, e.g., International Hod Carriers,
Building and Common Laborers Union of America, Local
#1082 (E. L. Boggs Plastering Co.), 384 F.2d 55 (C.A. 9,
1967), enfg. 150 NLRB 158 (1966); Plasterers Local 739
(Arnold M. Hansen), 157 NLRB 823 (1966); Sheet Metal
Workers Local 80 (Turner-Brooks Inc.), 161 NLRB 229
(1966); Southern California Pipe Trades District Council No.
16, of the United Association (Aero Plumbing Co.), 167
NLRB 1004 (1967); also id. at 184 NLRB 398 (1970);
United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers Local No. 36
(Roofing Association of So. California), 172 NLRB 2248
(1968); Carpenters District Council of Detroit (Excello Dry
Wall Co.), 145 NLRB 663 (1964).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Union set forth in
section III, above, occurring in connection with the
operations of J. J. Dalton and Owen Glover, d/b/a D & G
Construction Co., described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial, relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
bargaining or the adjustment of grievances
r Sec. 8(b)(3) of the Act provides that it will be an unfair labor practice
for a labor organization or its agents to refuse to bargain collectively with an
employer, provided it is the representative of his employees subject to the
provisions of Sec. 9(a).
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Union violated
Section 8(bX3) of the Act by insisting on and forcing the
signing of a contract stipulation requiring the posting of a
performance bond and the payment of money to the
account of the Association (Laborer's Administrative
Account) and (Laborer's Industry Advancement Fund) by
J. J. Dalton and Owen Glover, d/b/a D & G Construction
Co., it is recommended that the Respondent Union cease
and desist from insisting on these items . In order to restore
the parties to the status quo ante it is recommended that the
Respondent Union be ordered to return any sums of
money paid by Dalton for a bond or into the funds above
mentioned . Such payment shall bear interest at the rate of
6 percent per annum.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. J. J. Dalton and Owen Glover , d/b/a D & G
Construction Co., is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent, Local 264, Laborers International
Union of North America, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Sections 2(5) and 8(bX3) of the Act.
3. At all times material herein , Respondent Union has
been the exclusive bargaining representative for the unit of
laborers employed by J. J. Dalton and Owen Glover,
d/b/a D & G Construction Co., within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
4. By threats of picketing to force the signing of a
contract stipulation requiring J. J. Dalton and Owen
Glover, d/b/a D & G Construction Co.'s payment of a
performance bond and to a Laborer 's Administrative
Expense Account and a Laborer's Industry Advancement
Fund, and by insisting on such payments , the Respondent
Union has violated Section 8(bX3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent Union has not violated Section
8(bx1XB) of the Act.
s In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102.46 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 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.
9 At the time of the hearing the Charging Party had not paid the
Upon 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:
ORDERS
The Respondent Local 264, Laborers International
Union of North America , its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain in good
faith with J. J. Dalton and Owen Glover, d/b/a D & G
Construction Co., by insisting on and forcing said
Charging Party's posting a performance bond or making
payments for the benefit of the Laborer's Administrative
Expense Account or the Laborer's Industry Advancement
Fund.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate
the purposes of the Act:
(a) Return , or cause to be returned , all moneys J. J.
Dalton and Owen Glover , d/b/a D & G Construction Co.,
has paid into the aforesaid funds or in connection with the
posting of a performance bond .9
(b) Post in conspicuous places in Respondent Union's
business offices, meeting halls , and all places where notices
to members are usually posted , copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 17, shall,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of
the Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Forthwith mail copies of said notice to the said
Regional Director after said copies have been signed as
provided above for posting by D & G Construction Co., if
they so agree, at places where they customarily post notices
to laborers in their employ.
(d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision , what steps
Respondent Union has taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 8(b)(1)(B) violation
alleged in the complaint is dismissed.
performance bond.
10 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."