Local 334, Laborers Int'l. Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 523 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

LOCAL 334, LABORERS INTL. UNION 523
Local 334, Laborers International Union of North
America , AFL-CIO and Carpenters District
Council of Detroit , Wayne and Oakland Counties
and Vicinity , United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and James
Jackson and Arthur Sibert , A Co-Partnership,
d/b/a Exquisite Construction Company. Cases
7-CC-517, 7-CP-104, 7-CC-518, and
7-C P-105
June 17, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS MCCULLOCH, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On March 16, 1970, Trial Examiner Herbert Sil-
berman issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged
in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that they cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter both Re-
spondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and supporting briefs.
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
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that Respondents , Local 334, Laborers In-
ternational Union of North America , AFL-CIO,
and Carpenters District Council of Detroit, Wayne
and Oakland Counties and Vicinity , United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.
AFL-CIO, their respective orficers , agents, and
representatives , shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order.
' In their exceptions both Respondent Laborers Union and Respondent
Carpenters Union take issue with the refusal of the Trial Examiner to pass
upon the validity of the election and resulting certification of incumbent
Local 124 in Case 7-RM-761 The Carpenters Union contends addi-
tionally it is entitled to litigate the representative status of Local 124
because it was not a party in the underlying representation proceeding
Respondent Laborers rucreiy seeks to relitigate the validity of its objections
183 NLRB No. 62
which were overruled in the basic representation case It offers no previ-
ously unavailable or newly discovered evidence in support of its position in
this regard Accordingly, and as we have made an independent review of
the record in Case 7-RM-761 and find that the Regional Director's
findings therein are correct, we are of the opinion that Respondent
Laborers exceptions raise no material issue affecting the validity of the cer-
tification or requiring a hearing We also find that Respondent Carpenters
Union, in the instant proceeding, has no standing to contest the validity of
the certification or Local 124's representative status among the employees
of Exquisite See Roman Stone Construction Company, 153 NLRB 659
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERBERT SILBERMAN , Trial Examiner: Upon
charges filed by James Jackson and Arthur Sibert, a
Co-Partnership, d/b/a Exquisite Construction Com-
pany, herein called the Company, on June 25,
1969, against Local 334, Laborers International
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Laborers Union, and on June 30, 1969, against
Carpenters District Council of Detroit, Wayne and
Oakland Counties and Vicinity, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Carpenters Union, a
complaint, dated July 25, 1969, was issued alleging
that the Respondents have engaged in and are en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(C),
8(b)(7)(A), and 8(b)(7)(B) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
In substance, the complaint alleges that each of
the Respondents since April 7, 1969, has sought
recognition from and bargaining with the Company
as the collective-bargaining representative of cer-
tain classifications (unspecified in the complaint) of
employeees within a unit for which another labor
organization was later certified and in furtherance
of these objectives since May 12, 1969, has
picketed the Company's construction site at 1730
Magnolia,_ Detroit, Michigan, that thereafter. fol-
lowing an election held on June 10, 1969,1 the Re-
' The election followed the filing on May 27, 1969, by the Company of a
charge in Case 7-CP-102 alleging that the Laborers Union was engaged in
conduct constituting unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act and a representation petition in Case 7-RM-761
Without providing for any hearing the Regional Director on June 4, 1969,
issued a Direction of Election in Case 7-RM-76 I purportedly under the
authority given in Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act and Section 102 77 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations The petition in Case 7-RM-761 named Local 124
as the recognized bargaining agent and stated that the Company had been
picketed by the Laborers Union Local 124 and the Laborers Union (which
sought to have its name removed from the ballot on the ground that it had
not and was not requesting recognition ) were listed on the ballot The
results of the election were 19 votes cast for Local 124, no votes cast for
the Laborers Union, and no votes cast against participating labor organiza-
tions The Laborers Union duly filed objections to conduct affecting the
results of the election which were overruled by the Regional Director who,
on June 23, 1969, issued a Supplemental Decision on Objections and a
Certification of Representatives certifying Local 124 as the collective-bar-
gaining representative for the described unit The charge in Case
7-CP-102 was withdrawn by the Company with the approval of the Re-
gional Director on June 4, 1969 See Section 102 81 of the Board' s Rules
and Regulations and Section 101 24 of the Board's Statements of
Procedure The Laborers Union on June 25, 1969, duly filed with the
Board a request for review of the Supplemental Decision on Objections
The Board on July 3, 1969, issued an order denying the request for permis-
sion to appeal
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gional Director, on behalf of the Board, on June 23,
1969, certified Local 124, United Construction and
Trades Union of Michigan, Allied Workers Interna-
tional Independent Union, herein called Local 124,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees of the Company in the following unit:
All employees of the Employer' engaged in
building and construction work, employed at
or operating out of the Employer's Detroit,
Michigan location, but excluding office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act, and all other employees,
that each of the Respondents by its picketing and
by other means has engaged in and has induced and
encouraged individuals employed by the Company
and other employers to engage in strikes or refusals
in the course of their employment to transport or
otherwise handle or work on goods or to perform
services and has threatened, coerced, and
restrained such employers; and that by reason of
such conduct each of the Respondents has violated
Section 8(b)(4)(C),3 8(b)(7)(A), and 8(b)(7)(B)
of the Act.'
A hearing in this proceeding was held on October
1, 2, 6, and 7, 1969, in Detroit, Michigan.
Thereafter, a brief and a supplemental brief were
filed by General Counsel and a brief was filed by
the Laborers Union.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
James Jackson and Arthur Sibert are copartners
doing business under the name Exquisite Construc-
tion Company. The partnership is a general con-
tractor engaged in construction work in the
metropolitan area of Detroit, Michigan. During the
times material hereto it was engaged in remodeling
a building located at 1730 Magnolia, Detroit,
Michigan. Within the calendar year 1969 materials
valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped directly
to the Magnolia project from points located outside
the State of Michigan. I find that the Company is an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
Act engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE RESPONDENTS
Laborers Union and Carpenters Union are labor
The Employer is engaged in construction projects in Detroit at other lo-
cations in addition to the project at 1730 Magnolia
' While the complaint does not specifically state the date on which the
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(C) of the Act commenced, such date cannot
be any earlier than June 23, 1969, the date of issuance of the Certification
of Representatives
' While the complaint does not allege the date on which the violations of
Section 8 (b)(7)(A) and 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act began, General Counsel
specifically stated at the hearing that he does not contend that it was before
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Company, pursuant to a contract which it
had obtained to rehabilitate the apartment house
located at 1730 Magnolia, Detroit, Michigan, com-
menced preliminary work thereat in February
1969. In April of the same year the Company en-
tered into the following agreement with Local 124:
Working Agreement
I undersign due agree to employ all Local 124
members when they are available for all new
and rehabilitate Construction work. From May
1, 1969 to April 30, 1970. [sic] 5
Representatives of the Respondents and of
Wayne, Macomb and Oakland Building and Con-
struction Trades Council, AFL-CIO (herein called
the Trades Council), beginning in April had various
contacts with the Company concerning its employ-
ment practices. On May 12, 1969, various labor or-
ganizations affiliated with the Trades Council, in-
cluding Respondents, began to picket the Magnolia
project.' General Counsel contends that the picket-
ing by Respondents was for a recognitional objec-
tive. The picketing resulted in refusals by some em-
ployees of suppliers for the Company to make
deliveries of materials to the Magnolia project. On
May 27, 1969, the Company filed a charge alleging
violations of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act and
also filed a representation petition.7 Pursuant
thereto, an election was held on June 10 with Local
124 and Laborers Union (despite Laborers Union
disclaimer of interest in representing the Com-
pany's employees) on the ballot. Local 124 won the
election and a Certification of Representatives was
issued on June 23, 1969.
The principal issue of fact litigated at the hearing
relates to whether the picketing of the Magnolia
project was for "an object" of "forcing or requiring
[the Company] to recognize or bargain with [each
of the Respondents] as the representative of [its]
employees." The largest part of the testimony and
the other evidence adduced at the hearing in this
case was given by or involved the following persons
in their capacities as agents for their respective
principals:
For the owners of the Magnolia property:
June 10, 1969, the date of the election
According to James Jackson, the above-quoted agreement superseded
an identical agreement (except for misspelled words ) entered into earlier
in the month of April
a Picketing continued until it was enjoined by an order, dated August 13,
1969, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act
7 See fn I, supra
LOCAL 334, LABORERS INT'L.
Nicholas Hood ; Clarence Charles White.
For Local 124:
Calvin Stubbs , president.
For the Company:
James Jackson and Arthur Sibert, copartners.
For the Laborers Union:
William Carter, business manager; John
Mitchell and Jerome Davis , field representa-
tives.
For the Carpenters Union:
John Harrington , secretary-treasurer ; Joseph
(Jack ) Felker and Daniel J . Kelley [sic], busi-
ness agents.
For the Trades Council:
Jack Wood, secretary and business manager;
Raymond Glowski , assistant to Jack Wood.
Authority of the Trades Council
The complaint alleges that "Wood and Glowski
have acted on behalf of Respondents and were their
agents within the meaning of Sections 2(13),
8(b)(4) and 8(b)(7) of the Act." To prove this al-
legation General Counsel sought to establish that a
general agency relationship exists between the
Trades Council and the Respondents. The only per-
tinent evidence introduced by General Counsel in
support of this contention is the constitution and
bylaws of the Trades Council.8 This instrument
states that: "The object of this organization is to
promote harmony and good feeling between the
trades engaged in the building industry in Wayne,
Macomb and Oakland Counties and bring about a
better understanding between the trades and their
employers." It imposes certain inhibitions upon its
membership regarding jurisdictional disputes but
otherwise does not purport to regulate the activities
of its membership.
Wood testified that approximately 40 local
unions are members of the Trades Council and its
function "is to help and assist in whatever way
possible all of the affiliated local unions." He also
testified that he has no authority to bind any af-
filiate of the Trades Council to any agreement.
John Harrington testified that the Trades Council
has never been authorized to solicit or to negotiate
a collective-bargaining agreement for the Carpen-
" General Counsel also introduced in evidence the constitution of the
Building and Construction Trades Council , AFL-CIO
" As the work progressed at the Magnolia project the Company hired ad-
ditional people so that about 20 men were employed there by May 1969
" The testimony of Jackson indicates that , during the times material
525
ters Union, and approval of the Trades Council is
not required before the Carpenters Union may
establish a picket line. Similarly, Willie H. Carter
testified that neither Wood nor Glowski was ever
authorized to speak for the Laborers Union with
respect to its dealings with the Company or with
Local 124, that Jack Wood has no authority to act
for the Laborers Union, that the Trades Council is
not in any way involved in the Laborers Union con-
tract negotiations, and that authorization of the
Trades Council is not required before the Laborers
Union may establish a picket line at any location.
The Company's Relationship with Local 124
The Company began to hire employees sometime
in February 1969. The Company then was reha-
bilitating a single-family unit. James W. Jackson,
who is in charge of hiring for the Company,
testified that he asked Calvin Stubbs, president of
Local 124, to send him five men, two carpenters
and three laborers. When the Company later began
work at the Magnolia project two of the laborers
were transferred to that job and three additional
men, also referred to the Company by Local 124,
were hired. According to Jackson, "[t]wo were
members of local 124 and I think the other three
joined sometime later."9
Thereafter, the Company entered into the work-
ing agreement with Local 124 which is quoted
above. Jackson was uncertain as to when the agree-
ment, which is undated, was executed. He testified
that he signed the agreement "around the first part
of April." He then explained that another contract
preceded the quoted working agreement, but the
terms of the earlier agreement were identical ex-
cept for misspellings. According to Jackson, the
substance of the agreements was that "they could
supply men and we would use them."10
The Magnolia job had the benefit of Government
financing. As a consequence the Company was
required to pay its employees the Davis-Bacon
rates." The testimony of Jackson indicates that the
so-called Davis-Bacon rates for the Magnolia pro-
ject were less than the rates being paid to members
of the Respondents who were working under the
terms of the collective-bargaining agreements
which Respondents had negotiated with employers
in the area. Jackson testified further that as men
whom he hired demonstrated that they possessed
the skills of their crafts he advanced their rates of
hereto, the Company established and changed the rates of pay and the
other terms and conditions of employment of its employees unilaterally,
that is, without negotiating with Local 124
" According to the evidence once Davis - Bacon rates are established for
a job the rates do not change while the job is in progress
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pay from the Davis-Bacon rates to the "jour-
neymen's rate."12
Investigation of the Magnolia Project by the Trades
Council
Jack Wood testified that, at a regular meeting of
the Trades Council held early in April 1969,
someone reported with respect to the Magnolia
project that "either members of Local 124 were on
the job or non-union people." The Trades Council
was asked to investigate the situation.13 Ac-
cordingly, Wood asked his assistant, Glowski, to
visit the job with some other business agents and
find out what was going on. Glowski later reported
that he had talked to some of the men on the Mag-
nolia job and that some said that they were mem-
bers of Local 124 and others would give him no
answer. Wood further testified that the subject was
discussed at another meeting of the Trades Council
and, in addition, Glowski had meetings with the
various affiliates of the Trades Council. Wood also
had discussions, which are summarized below, with
representatives of the Company and of the owners
concerning the Magnolia project and testified that
he made reports at regular meetings of the Trades
Council concerning his discussions. f"
The Visit to the Magnolia Project on April 7
On April 7, 1969, Raymond Glowski, Joseph
Felker, Jerome Davis, and John Mitchell visited the
Magnolia project.15 They drove to the site
together.16
Arthur Sibert testified without contradiction that
Glowski, Davis, and Mitchell spoke with him on the
occasion of their visit." According to Sibert, "I was
asked by Ray Glowski to sign a working agreement
The first meeting together of some of the persons involved in this case
occurred at a Howard Johnson's Restaurant in December 1968 The sub-
ject was not related to the affairs of the Company but concerned a dispute
which Goldfarb Construction Company had with the Laborers Union and
with Local 124 concerning a job referred to as the Seward project Accord-
ing to Willie H Carter, present at this meeting, in addition to himself and
his field representatives, John Mitchell and Jerome Davis, were Calvin
Stubbs, president of Local 124, a gentleman who introduced himself as the
vice president of Local 124, James Jackson, who introduced himself as a
second or third vice president of Local 124, and Joe Goldfarb, owner of
Goldfarb Construction Company According to Carter's further testimony,
at this meeting, he had a discussion with Stubbs and the two agreed that
they would not have "a mix-up again on the laborers " Stubbs and he
agreed further that all laborers doing the type of work being performed at
the Seward project would "come into" the Laborers Union and would
receive the rates of pay established by the Laborers Union contracts
Stubbs said that his organization had other work and that the laborers
would come under the Laborers Union scale A result of the meeting was
that the laborers on the Seward project signed up with the Laborers Union
and began to pay dues to the Laborers Union The further understanding
between Carter and Stubbs was that Local 124 would not represent
laborers on future jobs
According to Jackson, Goldfarb invited him to attend the meeting
Stubbs and he drove to the meeting together in Jackson's car At that time
the Company had begun operations although it had not yet hired any con-
struction workers Jackson testified that "we were feeling [Stubbs] out to
see if he was going to be a union that we could have, that would be the ad-
vocate for the people that worked for us " Jackson denied that he in-
troduced himself at the meeting as a vice president of Local 124 He
testified that he introduced himself as a contractor To the extent that the
with the AFL Building Trades and I explained to
him that this was impossible ... since we had al-
ready signed a working agreement with 124 and he
further asked me to talk with my partner, discuss
with my partner to see if we could make arrange-
ments to sign a working agreement with them, and
he asked me if I would call him the next morning
and let him know."
Davis testified that present at the meeting with
Sibert were Mitchell, Felker, and Glowski. He was
unable to remember what anybody said other than
himself. According to Davis, after he had in-
troduced himself he asked Sibert about a contract
with the Laborers Union. Sibert replied that he
would have to speak to his partner before he could
make any agreement with anyone.
Felker testified that while he was at the project
he spoke to three men separately who appeared to
be doing carpenters' work and ascertained that they
were not being paid as high an hourly rate and were
not receiving the fringe benefits as were provided
for by the Carpenters Union contracts in the area.
After these conversations he went into the office to
speak with Sibert.'8 Felker asked Sibert how the
rates of pay for the carpenters were fixed because it
seemed that each carpenter was receiving a dif-
ferent rate of pay. Sibert replied that his partner,
Jackson, took care of such matters. Felker asked
Sibert to inquire of Jackson how the rates of pay
were determined and to telephone Felker with such
information.
Some days later, about the middle of April,
Sibert received a telephone call from David Joseff
requesting him to meet with Joseff at the latter's of-
fices.19 An appointment was made for the next
morning. When he arrived at Joseff's office Sibert
found Raymond Glowski present as well as Joseff.
Glowski stated that Sibert carries an AFL card,20
testimony of Jackson and Carter conflict, I credit Jackson whom I find was
the more reliable witness
19 John Harrington testified that he probably was the one who requested
the investigation to be made
" Harrington testified that he recalls no report from Wood concerning
the investigation of the Magnolia project prior to May 12, 1969, but that he
doesn't attend all the Trades Council's meetings However, Harrington
testified that as the Carpenters Union had established a picket line at the
Magnolia project the subject undoubtedly was discussed at a meeting of the
Trades Council He did not recall what was said in regard thereto
's Felker testified that the visit was made in early May I find Felker erred
as to the date
" The offices of the Trades Council and of the Carpenters Union are in
the same building, and the offices of the Laborers Union are across the
street
it Sibert did not testify to any conversation at which Felker was present
However, Felker testified he spoke with Sibert
" According to Felker, he asked one of the men on the job who his boss
was and the man pointed to an office Felker went into the office where he
spoke with Sibert who introduced himself as the representative of the Com-
pany This conflicts with Felker's testimony on cross-examination that
when he arrived at the project he and Glowski went directly into Sibert's
office
i' David Joseff is the business manager of Local 1513 of the Brotherhood
of Carpenters This organvation is a constituent member of the Carpenters
Union. John Hamngton testified that, although Joseff is on the Carpen-
ters Union negotiating committee, he is not an officer or agent of the Car-
penters Union
°" Sibert is a member of Local 1513
LOCAL 334, LABORERS INT'L.
and he wanted the Company to sign a working
agreement with the AFL building trades. Sibert
replied that he had a working agreement with Local
124 and saw no reason to break it. After some
further conversation, Glowski said "they would
have to take whatever steps were necessary."
April 23 Meeting
On April 23 a meeting was held at the offices of
the Trades Council among representatives of the
Trades Council, the owners, and the Company.
Present at the meeting were: Jack Wood, Raymond
Glowski, Nicholas Hood, Clarence Charles White,
and James W. Jackson. Among other things that
took place at the meeting, according to White's
testimony which I credit, either Glowski or Wood
said there was no need for Local 124, there was not
room enough in the city of Detroit for two con-
struction trades unions, the AFL construction
trades unions were better qualified to do the job
than Local 124, and therefore the representatives
of the owners and the Company should discontinue
their relationship with Local 124.21
May 2 Meeting
Subsequently, on May 2, there was another meet-
ing which was attended only by Glowski, Hood, and
White. According to White's uncontradicted
testimony, Glowski stated that there was no need or
room for two building craft unions in the city of
Detroit and that "they were the best qualified."
Glowski showed Hood and White documents in-
tending thereby to prove that Local 124 was en-
gaged in improper practices such as receiving
kickbacks and that contractors using men from
Local 124 were not paying proper wages. Hood
testified that Glowski also said that the fringe
benefits being given the employees at the Magnolia
project were inferior to those provided by the
Laborers Union.
The Decision To Picket the Magnolia Project
Both Respondents and other unions who are
members of the Trades Council began to picket the
Magnolia project on May 12, 1969. The explana-
tion given by Felker for the fact that all the unions
began picketing at the same time is that the deci-
sion arose out of a chance meeting on May 8 in the
hallway of the building in which the Trades Council
has its offices. Present were Felker, Mitchell, and
several other business agents whom he no longer
remembers. There was a discussion of the wages
being paid at the Magnolia project and, according
White's testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Hood and
Jackson Wood's testimony is substantially consistent with the credited
testimony of White According to Wood, "We asked them to help do what-
ever was possible to have the employees become members of the Building
Trades Courcil in various categories " According to Wood's further
testimony, Jackson said that he didn't want anything to do with the Build-
ing Trades Council and that he had signed a contract with Local 124 At
this meeting Wood also said that the Company's present employees would
be accepted as members in the various AFL Building Trades Unions
527
to Felker, "at that time it was decided that possibly
picket action should be instituted ... there was a
date set for Monday [May 12]." However, con-
tradicting Felker is the testimony of Wood that the
decision to picket the Magnolia project was made
at a meeting of the Trades Council.22
Felker testified further that he did not have
authority to establish a picket line. He had reported
to Harrington what he had learned from his visit to
the Magnolia project on April 7. After the hallway
meeting on May 8 he recommended to Harrington
that the Carpenters Union should join the other
unions in picketing the Magnolia project beginning
Monday, May 12. Harrington agreed and
authorized Felker to picket the project
Harrington testified that whenever investigation
discloses that a contractor employing carpenters is
not paying his carpenters the rate established for
the area by the Carpenters Union the Carpenters
Union will picket the job with an informational
picket sign advertising such fact. Kelly listed 11
projects which were picketed by the Carpenters
Union to protest the fact that the wages and
benefits being paid to carpenters on the jobs were
substandard. However, both Harrington and Kelly
testified that, except for one instance involving col-
lege students, these disputes were resolved by the
carpenters, on the jobs in question, joining the Car-
penters Union or one of its affiliated locals.23
Carter testified that some time prior to April
1969 Mitchell told him that the laborers on the
Magnolia project were being paid less than the
union scale. Carter instructed Mitchell to return to
the project and see what he could do to get the rate
for the laborers on the job increased to the union
scale. According to Carter, Mitchell understood
from these instructions that he also would try to get
the laborers to join the Laborers Union. Mitchell
subsequently reported to Carter that the laborers
on the project were represented by Local 124 and
were being paid less than the Laborers Union rate.
Mitchell also reported to Carter that Mitchell had
spoken to one of the owners of the Company and
had told him about the agreement between the
Laborers Union and-Local-172-4 pursuant to which
Local 124 would not send men to jobs if the rate
was less than the Laborers Union scale.
While Carter was out of town, according to
Carter, Mitchell reported to him by telephone that
Mitchell had not been successful in his effort to get
the Company to pay the laborers on the Magnolia
job the union rate and requested authority from
Carter to picket the job on the following Monday.
Carter acceded.24
'Z Wood further testified that the Trades Council concerned itself with
the Magnolia project at the specific request of some of the trades
=' Harrington explained that " their employer may in turn have wished
them to join [the Carpenters] and they [the employees] reconciled them-
selves to the fact
" Carter further testified that in the same conversation Mitchell reported
that he had asked one of the principals of the Company to sign a contract
with the Laborers Union and was refused for the stated reason that the
Company had a working agreement with Local 124
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Picketing the site of the Magnolia project Davis stated,
" [ W ] e want a contract with this contractor and
In the morning of May 12, 1969, various unions sign the laborers up in 334."
which are members of the Trades Council began
picketing the Magnolia project , including the
Laborers Union, the Carpenters Union, Cement
Masons, Plasterers, and Electricians. The legend on
the Laborers Union sign said, "This contractor un-
fair to Local 334." The legend on the Carpenters
Union sign said, "Exquisite Construction Company
does not pay wages and fringe benefits as
established by Carpenters in this area ." The picket-
ing interrupted deliveries of materials to the jobsite.
Thus, Sibert testified that between May 12 and the
end of the month the driver for Cashway Lumber
Company refused to deliver a load of lumber con-
signed to the project. A similar incident occurred in
June involving a driver of Currier Lumber. Without
specifying the date on which this event happened,
Sibert testified that employees for Friendship Win-
dows refused to deliver screens consigned to the
project. Jackson testified that because of the
picketing some of the AFL contractors and subcon-
tractors would not cross the picket line so that the
Company had to change from drywall construction
to lathe and plaster . He also testified that the
Teamsters stopped delivering materials so that the
Company had to hire its own trucks to pick up
goods.
There is some evidence indicating that the
picketing activities of the various unions were han-
dled cooperatively. Jackson testified that a different
individual was picket captain for each day of the
week. He also observed Glowski escort pickets to
the jobsite who were carrying signs including signs
for the Laborers Union and for the Carpenters
Union.
Stated Reasons for the Picketing
Jackson , whom I credit , testified that , when he
arrived at the Magnolia project about 8:30 a.m. on
May 12, he discovered pickets patrolling the
premises and he invited them inside . Included in
the group who responded to his invitation were
Mitchell , Davis, and Felker. Jackson asked why
they were there and Davis said that he was there to
get a contract and they were going to stay until they
got one . Jackson asked Davis what the real reason
was that the Company was picked on as the subject
of the picketing and Davis said he didn 't know, he
was just ordered to go to the project . Jackson
testified that he also spoke to Felker in the
presence of Davis, Mitchell , and some others.
Felker said, according to Jackson , "[ H]e intended
to sign up all of the men , he was going to sign up
the Carpenters , because we weren't paying them
proper wages."
The next day , May 13, in a television interview at
" Wood testified that his recollection of what transpired at the meeting
was poor and that it was possible he said that he would like to have the
May 28 Meeting
On May 28, 1969 , a meeting was arranged by the
business agent of the Bricklayers Union . Attending
the meeting , in addition to said business agent, was
Wood , Glowski, Calvin Stubbs , Jackson, and
several other people , including Karl D . Gregory.
Gregory, who is a professor at Oakland University
and chairman of the board and president of Ac-
cord , Incorporated , which organization is engaged
in a joint venture with the Company in the reha-
bilitation of the Magnolia project, testified that he
opened the meeting by saying that the purpose was
to see what could be done to remove the pickets at
the Magnolia project . At one point during the
meeting Stubbs asked what was the reason for the
picketing. He was told by Wood and Glowski that
there was room in the State of Michigan for only
one Building Trades Council . At a later point dur-
ing the meeting, Wood said that every legal and
moral means would be used to maintain only one
Building Trades Council in Detroit . Athough
pressed several times to state what could be done to
stop the picketing , the only responses from Wood
or Glowski , according to Gregory , "related to the
existence of Local 124. Toward the end, in a
parenthetical way, there was some mention of
wages, of the allegation of wages below area stan-
dards ... that was towards the end when it was
clear that the meeting was about to break up
because there was an impasse. "25
Laborers Union Disclaimer
The picket signs which were being used by the
Laborers Union at the Magnolia project were
removed about noon on June 3 and the next morn-
ing new signs were substituted which read,
"Exquisite does not pay area rate to laborers." The
name of the Laborers Union appeared in large let-
ters at the bottom of the sign . Carter testified that
prior to the change of the picket sign he had
received a letter from the National Labor Relations
Board and then consulted with his attorney who
suggested the revised language for the picket signs.
On June 3 the attorney for the Laborers Union
wrote the following letter to the Company, a copy
of which was sent to the National Labor Relations
Board:
I am the attorney for Local 334, Laborers
International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, and I am authorized to send this
letter on its behalf.
Based upon the allegations contained in cer-
tain papers filed by you with the National
Company's employees who were working on the Magnolia project become
members of the unions which belong to the Trades Council
LOCAL 334, LABORERS INT'L.
Labor Relations Board, we believe that there
has accidentally or purposely been a misun-
derstanding or misconstruction of the purpose
of the picketing being conducted by the Local
at your jobsite at 1730 Magnolia, Detroit.
The fault may be, in part , ours . To the extent
it is, this letter is being sent for the purpose of
making crystal clear the objective of the
picketing.
Laborers Local 334, in an effort to represent
those engaged in laborers ' work in the building
and construction industry in the metropolitan
Detroit area and to improve the lot of disad-
vantaged brothers who have frequently in the
past been exploited by irresponsible contrac-
tors and , sometimes , ruthless labor racketeers,
has worked diligently and collectively over
many years to establish a rate comparable to
those enjoyed by others working in the con-
struction industry and to establish the means
for financing fringe benefit programs to pro-
vide a measure of health and retirement securi-
ty for laborers . We are proud of our record
and intent upon preserving the gains we have
made together.
Based upon information received from peo-
ple previously employed as laborers on pro-
jects in which Local 124 was involved, we un-
derstand that the rate that you are paying your
laborers is substantially below the rate in the
area generally enjoyed by those our union
represents and, therefore , poses a threat to the
wage structure gained over years of hard work,
hard collective bargaining , and occasionally
strikes.
The gross wage, including fringe benefits, for
an ordinary construction laborer represented
by Local 334 is $5 . 65 an hour for regular shift
employees and $5 . 95 and $ 6.25 for second and
third shift employees. Rates for men classified,
on the basis of skills, in other laborer classifica-
tions run from a low of $5 . 75 an hour to a high
of $7.00 an hour , depending upon classifica-
tion and shift.
Whatever you may have heard or been told
before now , the purpose of the picket line we
are maintaining , as reflected in the signs which
will hereafter be carried by our pickets, is to
protest the substandard wages being paid your
laborers . The previous additional purpose of
asserting our jurisdictional claim is hereby ex-
plicitly withdrawn . If you pay your laborers an
amount equivalent to that required under our
collective bargaining agreement , we will, upon
ascertaining this fact to be true , withdraw the
picket line and keep it off as long as the area
rate is being paid.
529
July 2 Meeting
On July 2 a meeting was held at the offices of
Donald Prebenda , attorney for the Trades Council.
Present , in addition to Prebenda , were Wood,
Glowski, Jackson , Sibert , and Theodore Stephens,
attorney for the Company . The discussion con-
cerned the conditions under which the picketing of
the Magnolia project would be discontinued. Wood
stated that the pickets would be removed if any
agreement that the Company signs with Local 124
does not exceed a term of 1 year in order that the
AFL unions would have an opportunity to organize
the Company 's employees at the expiration of the
year.
Conclusions as to the Object of the Picketing
The principal factual issue in the case concerns
the object of the picketing . Subordinate to this
question is the extent , if any, to which the conduct
of Wood and Glowski can be relied on as tending to
reveal such object. General Counsel argues in ef-
fect that the Trades Council is the general agent of
the Respondents and therefore the conduct of
Glowski and Wood automatically , regardless of
absence of specific authority , binds Respondents. I
find General Counsel has failed to prove any such
general agency relationship . This finding, however,
does not determine the issue.
The picketing in this case was a coordinated-if
not a cooperative-venture. Both Respondents and
other labor organizations began to picket the Mag-
nolia project at the same time pursuant to prear-
rangement . Wood testified:
Q. With respect to the Magnolia project, did
you and your assistant , Mr. Glowski , enter into
this dispute and problem on the specific
request of any of your affiliates?
A. There was a meeting-whether it was at
a regular meeting or a specially -called meet-
ing-there was a decision made to picket the
project.
Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Wood . In this
particular case involving the Magnolia Project,
did you and Mr . Glowski , your assistant, enter
into this dispute at the request of the affiliated
trades of your Council?
A. Mr. Fischer , I already answered that.
Q. Would you please answer it again. I am
sorry if I didn't understand your answer.
A. At a meeting at, at either a regular meet-
ing of the delegates of the Council or at a spe-
cially-called meeting of the affiliates , called for
the purpose of discussing this problem, the
decision was made to picket the job.
Q. Did they request you personally, Mr.
Wood , to enter into the dispute?
A. Well, I can't say that they asked me per-
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sonally to enter into it, but they asked our of-
fice to.26
While each union which picketed the Magnolia
project may have furnished and paid its own
pickets, only one individual, who was changed
daily, served as picket captain for all the pickets.
Also, although no picket sign was carried on behalf
of the Trades Council, Glowski appeared regularly
at the picket line and on a number of occasions
escorted pickets to the jobsite.
Contemporaneously with the inauguration of the
picketing , representatives of the Respondents
stated that the reason for the picketing was to sign
up the employees on the Magnolia project. Thus,
on May 12 Davis told Jackson that the Laborers
Union was there to get a contract. The next day in
a television interview Davis stated , "We want a
contract ... and [to] sign up the laborers in 334."
Similarly, Felker told Jackson on May 12 that "he
intended to sign up all of the men, he was going to
sign up the [ c]arpenters , because [the Company
wasn 't] paying them proper wages ." On the various
occasions described above Wood indicated that the
object of the picketing was to cause the Company
to cease dealing with Local 124 and to sign agree-
ments with members of the Trades Council.
The evidence shows that the members of the
Trades Council discussed the non-AFL character of
the Magnolia project at meetings of the Trades
Council , directed Wood and Glowski to investigate
the situation , and, after receiving their reports, de-
cided at a Trades Council meeting to picket the
project : In these circumstances , regardless of any
general agency relationship between the Trades
Council and its membership , I find that the Trades
Council and the Respondents were joined in a com-
mon undertaking in seeking to exert pressure upon
the Company to recognize and to bargain with
Respondents as representatives of the Company's
employees and to cease dealing with Local 124.27 I
further find that the meetings between Wood and
I" I find incredible the testimony of Felker, Harrington, and Carter as to
how it happened that the various unions began picketing the Magnolia pro-
ject at the same time According to Felker, as a result of an accidental
meeting with Mitchell and other business agents, whose names he could not
remember, in the hallway of an office building "it was decided that possibly
picket action should be instituted and [t]here was a date set for
Monday [May 12] " This testimony was not corroborated by Mitchell or
by any other business agent who attended the hallway meeting Further-
more, Felker testified that he did not have authority to establish a picket
line and Carter's testimony indicates that Mitchell also lacked such
authority Thus, despite the fact that the business agents who on May 8
agreed among themselves to begin picketing the Magnolia project on May
12 had no authority to implement their decision, they were successful in
quickly obtaining authorizations from the senior officials of their respective
unions without any further personal contacts or other collaboration among
the various unions This does not ring true and the testimony of Harrington
and Carter adds nothing to the credibility of Felker's explanation Thus,
Harrington testified that, because Felker reported that the Company was
not paying its carpenters the area rate and that other craft unions were con-
templating picket action, he gave Felker authority to picket the Magnolia
project If Harrington is to be believed, either he is accustomed to acting
rashly in such matters or he is a figurehead who rubber stamps the deci-
sions already arrived at by his subordinates It is my opinion that neither is
the case Similarly, Carter's testimony also reflects an unbelievable absence
of concern as to the consequences which might attend the ill-considered
Glowski on the one hand and the Company and the
owners on the other hand , described above , were in
furtherance of such common undertaking and
therefore the statements made by Wood and
Glowski at such meetings are competent evidence
of Respondents ' object in picketing the Magnolia
project.28
The Laborers Union argues that , if it had an ob-
ject offensive to the strictures of the Act when it
commenced picketing , such object changed on or
about June 3 . I am not persuaded by this argument.
The only change that occurred was a change in the
language of the picket sign and the self-serving
letter which the counsel for the Laborers Union
sent to the Company and to the Board . These ac-
tions were taken in response to unfair labor prac-
tice charges which had been filed against the
Laborers Union and to a representation petition
which had been filed by the Company . These ac-
tions on the part of the Laborers Union reflect a
change in tactics in order to combat the charges
and the petition but alone do not demonstrate any
change in objective.
It is not to be expected that Respondents would
advertise a purpose to violate the law . The reasons
stated by them at the hearing for picketing the
Magnolia project after June 10, 1969 , I find insin-
cere , at least to the extent that they seek to dis-
claim a recognitional objective . It does not follow
that the absence of direct evidence negates the
proof of a violation of the Act. "A fact may be
established as surely by presumptions which natu-
rally and logically flow from a chain of events and
circumstances as by positive direct proof."
N.L.R.B . v. Glenn Berry Manufacturers , Inc., 422
F.2d 748, 750 ( C.A. 10). I find, as alleged in the
complaint, that at all times material hereto an ob-
ject of the picketing of the Magnolia project by
Respondents was to force or require the Company
to recognize or bargain with Respondents as the
representatives of the Company 's employees.
picketing of a building project According to Carter , he had received a re-
port from Mitchell that the laborers on the Magnolia project were being
paid less than union scale He instructed Mitchell to return to the project
and make an effort to get the laborers' rate increased to scale and if possi-
ble to sign up the laborers in the Laborers Union Later, while he was out of
the city , he received a telephone call from Mitchell who stated that he
(Mitchell ) had had no success with the Company and requested authority
to begin picketing on Monday ( May 12 ), to which Carter acceded It
strains credulity to accept the testimony of Harrington and Carter that in
the discharge of their duties as the principal officers of their respective
unions they act so offhandedly and casually in authorizing the establish-
ment of picket lines In general, I am of the opinion that Felker , Harring-
ton, and Carter were unreliable witnesses who were not reluctant to give
contrived versions of events and colored descriptions of their motivations
in order to support their defenses to this case Contrary to their testimony,
the more plausible explanation is the one given by Wood, namely , that the
decision to picket the Magnolia project was reached at a meeting of the
Trades Council after investigations had been made and after reports of the
results of the investigations had been given to the Trades Council's con-
stituency
" It is unnecessary to decide whether Respondents had as an additional
object a desire to cause the Company to raise the wages of its employees
'" Local 513, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO
(Kiewit - Centennial ), 163 NLRB 400, 404
LOCAL 334, LABORERS INT'L. 531
'Conclusions as to the Alleged Unfair Labor
Practices
9, I also find that Respondents have violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii )(C) of the Act.
In its brief the Laborers Union advances various
legal arguments as to why the complaint herein
must fail . All the arguments involve either an attack
upon the validity of the certification issued to Local
124 on June 23 or an attack upon the procedure
which led to the issuance of the certification. In-
cluded in these arguments is the contention that the
working agreement which the Company entered
into with Local 124 in April 1969 is an impermissi-
ble preferential hiring arrangement and therefore
the election conducted on June 10 should be
deemed a nullity because Local 124 was an unlaw-
fully assisted union . I do not pass upon the merit of
any of these arguments. I deem myself bound by
the certification which was issued on June 23.29 I
have no authority to set aside or ignore such certifi-
cation . Respondents , of course , may raise these is-
sues with the Board by appropriate exceptions to
this Decision.
As I have found that during the times material
hereto Respondents picketed the Company's Mag-
nolia project where an object of such picketing was
to force or require the Company to recognize or
bargain with Respondents as the representative of
the Company's employees within a period less than
12 months after a valid election was conducted
under Section 9(c) of the Act '30 I further find that
Respondents thereby have violated Section
8(b)(7)(B) of the Act. The Company's recognition
of Local 124, at least subsequent to the issuance of
the certification on June 23, 1969, must be deemed
lawful (at least until the certification is set aside by
the Board ).31 As a question concerning representa-
tion may not appropriately be raised within 1 year
after an election which gives rise to a certification,
the picketing of the Magnolia project in these cir-
cumstances also violated Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the
Act. Finally, as the picketing constituted induce-
ment and encouragement of individuals employed
by persons engaged in commerce to engage in a
strike or a refusal in the course of their employ-
ment to use, transport , or to otherwise handle or
work on goods , articles, materials , or commodities
or to perform services and constituted a threat,
coercion , and restraint of the Company32 for an ob-
ject of forcing or requiring the Company to recog-
nize or bargain with Respondents as the representa-
tives of the Company 's employees at a time when
Local 124 had been certified as the representative
of such employees under the provisions of Section
" Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Section
102 67(f)
,o Laborers Union cites no authority to support its contention that the
election conducted in Case 7-RM -76I, being an expedited election pur-
suant to the provisions of Section 8(b)(7)(C), is not an election under Sec-
tion 9 ( c) I find no merit to this argument The very language of Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act contemplates that the election procedure covered
by its provisions is a procedure under Section 9(c) of the Act
" As the certification was issued after the parties had entered into the
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section
III, above , occurring in connection with the Com-
pany's operations 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 of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of the Act, I shall
recommend that they cease and desist therefrom
and that they take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
and upon the entire record in this case, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By picketing the construction project of
James Jackson and Arthur Sibert, a Co -Partnership,
d/b/a Exquisite Construction Company, at 1730
Magnolia , Detroit , Michigan, on and after June 10,
1969, where an object of such picketing was to
force or require the Company to recognize or bar-
gain with Respondents as the representatives of
their employees when on said date a Board-con-
ducted election was won by Local 124 following
which Local. 124 was certified as the collective-bar-
gaining representative of the Company's employees
in the appropriate unit described above, Respon-
dents have violated Section 8(b)(7)(A ) and (B) of
the Act.
2. By picketing the construction project of the
Company at 1730 Magnolia , Detroit , Michigan, on
and after June 23, 1969, and thereby inducing or
encouraging individuals employed by the Company
and other persons engaged in commerce or in in-
dustries affecting commerce to engage in a strike or
a refusal in the course of their employment to use,
transport , or otherwise handle or work on any
goods, articles , or commodities or to perform any
services , and also thereby threatening , coercing,
and restraining the Company where, in either case,
working agreement quoted above, I am bound to recognize the certifica-
tion as being valid and the Company 's recognition of Local 124 while the
certification is outstanding as being lawful , regardless of the fact that the
Company's antecedent conduct may have constituted objectionable
assistance to Local 124
11 International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers' Union of
America, Local No 1140, AFL-CIO (Gilmore Construction Company), 127
NLRB 541
427-258 O-LT - 74 - 35
532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the object of such conduct was to force or require
the Company to recognize or bargain with Respon-
dents as the representatives of their employees
when Local 124 had been certified as the represen-
tative of such employees under the provisions of
Section 9 of the Act, Respondents have violated
Section 8 ( b)(4)(i) and (ii)(C) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record in the case, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby
recommend that the Respondents , Local 334,
Laborers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, and Carpenters District Council of
Detroit , Wayne and Oakland Counties and Vicinity,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, their respective officers,
representatives , and agents , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Picketing , causing to be picketed, or
threatening to picket any premises or construction
project of James Jackson and Arthur Sibert, Co-
Partnership , d/b/a Exquisite Construction Com-
pany, where an object thereof is to force or require
said Company to recognize or bargain with either
of the Respondents as the representative of their
employees in circumstances violative of Section
8(b)(7)(A) of the Act, that is, where the Company
has lawfully recognized in accordance with the Act
any other labor organization and a question con-
cerning representation may not appropriately be
raised under Section 9 (c) of the Act.
(b) Picketing , causing to be picketed, or
threatening to picket any premises or construction
projects of the above -named Company for a period
of 1 year from June 10, 1969, and at other times
where an object of such picketing is to force or
require the Company to recognize or bargain with
either of the Respondents as a representative of
their employees if within the preceding 12 months a
valid election under Section 9 ( c) of the National
Labor Relations Act has been conducted in a unit
in which such Respondent seeks recognition, at a
time when such Respondent has not been certified
to represent the employees in such unit.
(c) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any
individual employed by the Company or by any
other person engaged in commerce or in an indus-
try affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a
refusal in the course of his employment to use,
transport , or otherwise handle or work on any
goods, articles, materials , or commodities or to per-
form any services , and from threatening , coercing,
or restraining the Company or any other person en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce where , in either case , an object thereof is to
force or require the Company to recognize or bar-
gain with either of Respondents as a representative
of their employees during any times when Local
124, or any other labor organization, has been cer-
tified as the representative of such employees under
the provision of Section 9 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
will effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Post at Respondents ' respective business of-
fices and meeting halls copies of the attached
notices marked "Appendix A and Appendix B."33
Copies of said notices, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly
signed by said labor organizations' respective
authorized representatives, shall be posted by them
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to their members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 7
signed copies of said notices for posting by the
Company, if the Company shall be willing to post
such notices, at all places where notices to their
employees are customarily posted.
(c) Each of the Respondents shall notify said
Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.34
"" 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, recommendations, 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 Na-
tional 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 "
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents
have taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT picket, cause to be picketed,
or threaten to picket any premises or construc-
tion project of James Jackson and Arthur
Sibert, a Co-Partnership, d/b/a Exquisite Con-
struction Company, where an object of the
picketing is to force or require said Company
to recognize or bargain with us as the represen-
LOCAL 334, LABORERS INT'L.
tative of their employees in circumstances
violative of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act,
that is, where said Company has lawfully
recognized in accordance with the Act any
other labor organization and a question con-
cerning representation may not appropriately
be raised under Section 9 (c) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT picket , cause to be picketed,
or threaten to picket any premises or construc-
tion projects of the above-named Company for
a period of 1 year from June 10, 1969, and at
other times , where an object of such picketing
is to force or require the Company to recog-
nize or bargain with us as a representative of
their employees if within the preceding 12
months a valid election under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act has been
conducted in a unit in which we seek recogni-
tion , at a time when we have not been certified
to represent the employees in such unit.
WE WILL NOT engage in , or induce or en-
courage any individual employed by the above-
named Company or by any other person en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in
the course of his employment to use , transport,
or otherwise handle or work on any goods, ar-
ticles, materials , or commodities or to perform
any services , and WE WILL NOT threaten,
coerce, or restrain the Company or any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce where , in either case, an
object thereof is to force or require the Com-
pany to recognize or bargain with us as a
representative of their employees during any
times when Local 124, United Construction
and Trades Union of Michigan , Allied Workers
International Independent Union , or any other
labor organization , has been certified as the
representative of such employees under the
provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
LOCAL 334, LABORERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board 's Office , 500 Book Building, 1249 Washing-
533
ton Boulevard , Detroit , Michigan 48226,
Telephone 313-226-3200.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT picket, cause to be picketed,
or threaten to picket any premises or construc-
tion project of James Jackson and Arthur
Sibert , a Co-Partnership , d/b/a Exquisite Con-
struction Company, where an object of the
picketing is to force or require said Company
to recognize or bargain with us as the represen-
tative of their employees in circumstances
violative of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act,
that is, where said Company has lawfully
recognized in accordance with the Act any
other labor organization and a question con-
cerning representation may not appropriately
be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT picket , cause to be picketed,
or threaten to picket any premises or construc-
tion projects of the above -named Company for
a period of 1 year from June 10, 1969, and at
other times, where an object of such picketing
is to force or require the Company to recog-
nize or bargain with us as a representative of
their employees if within the preceding 12
months a valid election under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act has been
conducted in a unit in which we seek recogni-
tion , at a time when we have not been certified
to represent the employees in such unit.
WE WILL NOT engage in , or induce or en-
courage any individual employed by the above-
named Company or by any other person en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in
the course of his employment to use , transport,
or otherwise handle or work on any goods, ar-
ticles, materials , or commodities or to perform
any services , and WE WILL NOT threaten,
coerce, or restrain the Company or any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce where, in either case, an
object thereof is to force or require the Com-
pany to recognize or bargain with us as a
representative of their employees during any
times when Local 124, United Construction
and Trades Union of Michigan , Allied Workers
International Independent Union, or any other
labor organization , has been certified as the
representative of such employees under the
provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
534
Dated By
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CARPENTERS DISTRICT
COUNCIL OF DETROIT,
WAYNE AND OAKLAND
COUNTIES AND VICINITY,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS
OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board 's Office, 500 Book Building , 1249 Washing-
ton Boulevard, Detroit , Michigan 48226,
Telephone 313-226-3200.