Local 767, Laborers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 12, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 586 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local Union No. 767, Laborers International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO and Florida Planned
Communities, Inc. Case 12-CC-837
March 12, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
KENNEDY AND PENELLO
On September 28, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Benjamin A. Theeman issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting 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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
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 and
hereby orders that Respondent, Local Union No.
767, Laborers International Union of North Ameri-
ca, AFL-CIO, West Palm Beach, Florida, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN A. THEEMAN, Administrative Law Judge: The
complaint i in this case which issued June 26, 1973 ,2 alleges
i This term includes the complaint as amended at the hearing
2 The original charge was filed by Florida Planned Communities, Inc,
on June 12, 1973
3 Unless otherwise indicated all dates hereafter are 1973
4 Sec 8(b)(4) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for a union
(i) to engage in, or to induce any individual employed by any person
. to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to
use process or otherwise handle or work on any goods . or
to perform any services, or
(u) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object
thereof is:
(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease doing business with
any other person, or forcing or requiring any other employer to
recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of
his employees Provided, that nothing contained in this clause (B)
shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful,
any primary strike or primary picketing
that Local Union No. 767, Laborers International Union
of North America, AFL-CIO (Respondent or Union),
during the period May 1, 1973, through June 13, 1973,3
picketed Florida Planned Communities, Inc. (FPC), with
signs bearing FPC's name though FPC employed no
laborer employees, thereby threatening, restraining, and
coercing FPC and inducing and encouraging individuals
employed by FPC and other persons to engage in a strike
or refusal to perform services, with an object of forcing or
requiring FPC and other persons to cease doing business
with E. & G. Construction Co., Inc. (E. & G.), in violation
of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C., Sec. 151, et seq. (the
Act).4 The Union in its answer denies the unfair labor
practices and admits "that it has had a primary labor
dispute with FPC and/or E. & G."
A hearing was held before me on July 16, 17, and 18, in
Coral Gables, Florida, after due notice. All parties
appeared and were represented by counsel. They were
given full opportunity to participate, adduce evidence, and
examine and cross-examine witnesses. The General Coun-
sel argued orally and briefly at the close of the hearings .5 A
brief was submitted by the Union which has been
considered.
Upon the record in the case, and from my observation of
the witnesses,6 I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
FPC, a Florida corporation, is engaged in the building
business in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
Florida. It owns 470 acres of land on which it is
constructing a 5,000-unit condominium known as Golden
Lakes Village. Upon completion in about 6 years the
project will be valued in excess of $100 million.
During the 12 months prior to July 1973, a representative
period, FPC purchased or received at the project goods
and materials from outside Florida valued in excess of
$50,000.
E. & G., a Florida corporation, is under contract with
FPC in the amount of $530,000 to provide labor and
carpentry work for the project in accordance with certain
5 The General Counsel, though he understood that the Respondent was
raising some novel issues, did not submit a brief though a brief was
requested
6 The testimony of all witnesses has been considered . In evaluating the
testimony of each witness and making credibility determinations thereon,
pertinent testimony was considered as well as demeanor. On this basis it is
concluded and found that Giardiello in certain aspects as specified hereafter
was not a credible witness These conclusions are confirmed by a study and
analysis of the testimony As to material matters , his testimony was vague,
inconsistent , and contradictory Examples will be shown hereafter. In
addition , Giardiello testified that he consulted Gopman , his counsel, about
the picketing before May I. 1973. Gopman testified he had not heard from
Giardiello on this matter until late in May after the picketing had started.
The absence of a statement of resolution of a conflict in specific testimony,
or an analysis of such testimony , does not mean that such did occur See
Bishop and Marco Inc, d/b/a Walker's, 159 NLRB 1159, 1161. Further, to
the extent that a witness is credited only in part, it is done upon the
evidentiary rule that it is not uncommon " to believe some and not all of a
witness' testimony " N.LR.B v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F.2d
749, 754 (C.A 2, 1950), reversed and remanded on other grounds 340 U S
474 (1951).
209 NLRB No. 96
LOCAL 767, LABORERS 587
plans and specifications more fully set forth in the
contract.
On the above facts and the record as a whole it is found
that FPC and E. & G. are employers engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning
of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
11. THE UNION
It is found as admitted that the Union, at all material
times herein, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The issues are sufficiently set forth in the Statement of
the Case above.
B. Background
FPC, in addition to being the owner of Golden Lakes
Village, is also the builder and general contractor. This
project is FPC's first and only venture. As a general
contractor, FPC was licensed under Florida law. Palm
Beach County issued a building permit to FPC before
construction started. This permit was tacked up on the
jobsite as required.
Allen J. Gluckstern is the president of FPC and Jack
Taylor is secretary-treasurer. They are the only officers and
stockholders.
FPC, as general contractor, did no construction work at
the jobsite. It employed clerical, managerial, and mainte-
nance people and some casual labor but employed no
construction employees.' FPC subcontracted out the work
involved to all the trades. In addition to E. & G., other
subcontractors were Rubin Construction Company, Hig-
gins Electric Company, Harbeke Plumbing Company, and
Belvedere Construction Company. These subcontractors
were all nonunion. During the period commencing May I,
these subcontractors maintained an employee force on the
jobsite of between 100 and 115 employees .8
The tract upon which the condominium is being built is
bounded on the north by Okeechobee Boulevard, on the
east by Skees Road, on the south by Belvedere Boulevard,
and on the west by vacant land. Golden Lakes Boulevard
runs south through the project from Okeechobee Boule-
vard to Belvedere Boulevard. A fence surrounds a good
portion of the land. Gates on the different streets give
egress from and ingress to the project or jobsite. These
gates will be referred to hereafter by their street names.
In September 1972 on the jobsite but near Okeechobee
Boulevard gate, FPC started construction of its general
offices and six model condominium units. The offices and
models were completed about March 1. The models were
furnished and made available for sales purposes. The
offices housed FPC's staff and business records, etc. Its
address was 1901 Golden Lakes Boulevard. In April, FPC
started construction of its first development consisting of
250 condominium units. This development was about a
one-fourth of a mile south of the offices and models. Near
the construction, FPC maintained a trailer that was
unmarked and was used in connection with the construc-
tion. In it were permits, plans, specifications, and other
miscellaneous items.
C. The Subcontractors on the Model Units
Construction of the model units and general offices was
completed about March 1, 1973. FPC contracted out all
the work to subcontractors. FPC did no work itself and
employed no construction employees. The laborer and
carpenter's work was subcontracted to a company known
as South Coast Builders. Part of the duties of South Coast
laborers was to clean up after the construction crews. To
that extent they performed the same work as some casual
laborers employed by FPC s
Window cleaning, certain daily maintenance, and clean
up on the models was orally subcontracted to one Fanny
Foster. Foster was paid on an apartment basis. The
window cleaners and other laborers employed by Foster
had no mark on their clothes identifying them as Foster
employees while on the jobsite. After May 1, 1973, Foster
continued to supply one female laborer to the models to
cleanup and for daily maintenance.
Landscape and gardening performed at the models and
offices were also orally subcontracted. The work was done
by the employees of the different subcontractors. As with
Foster, the employees wore no identifying markings.
Trash hauling from the models was performed by a "B.
& D." company. The trucks used by B. & D. bore the
company's name.io
D. Employees of FPC During the Construction of
the Models and the Offices
During this period, FPC employed administrative per-
sonnel, construction supervisors, general superintendents,
assistant superintendents, sales managers, and salesmen. In
addition, as the models and offices were being finished,
FPC hired casual labor to clean the models and the model
area, to erect a billboard, to move furniture, and generally
to assist the decorators in whatever work was needed to
open the models to the public. There was a total of four
such casual employees but not more than two were
employed at one time. The FPC payroll records of these
employees "identified them as laborers." Some were
employed for as long as I week. They received a rate of pay
of $3 per hour. All of them were discharged before the end
of March. As with the employees of the subcontractors
working at the models the FPC employees wore no mark
identifying them as FPC employees.
r For a listing of FPC employees see the next section.
8 The essential facts are not in dispute, the parties differing as to their
legal effect The testimony as to some conversations are in conflict They are
specifically considered and resolved hereafter
9 See sec D.
10 The record contains some vague indication that E & G also hauled
some trash away from the models , but when or under what circumstances is
not given
588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
E. Employees of FPC After May 1, 1973
On and after May 1, 1973, the employees of FPC were in
essence the same" as those employed while the models
were being built. The record contains the statement that
FPC employed no laborers on and after May 1, 1973. After
May 1, 1973, certain additional employees were added by
FPC.
On May 2, 1973, Warren Stockweather was hired by
FPC as a maintenance man. He was employed until June
29, 1973. His duties were to clean up outside the offices
and the model units. Daily, he added chemicals as required
to the pump that pumped water into the bathroom of the
offices. Also, he did some repair work on the offices and
models, such as painting, cleaning, changing bulbs, etc.i2
Stockweather performed no labor in connection with the
250 units. His labor was confined to the area of the models
and the general offices.
On May 5, 1973, FPC employed Raymond E. Bair as a
night watchman. He was so classified and his duties were
to walk or drive around the jobsite at night.
On May 11, 1973, one Luard A. Dennison was hired.
Gluckstern testified that he held the position of assistant
superintendent 13 to assist and report to the general or
construction superintendent. He did this by observation on
the job and coordination of the supervisors of the
subcontractors. One of Dennison's main duties was to
transmit information from the construction supervisor of
FPC to the supervisor of the subcontractor on the job and
vice versa. This area included directives from the construc-
tion superintendent to the sub that certain items were to be
accomplished. Dennison made progress reports. Dennison
was directed by FPC to speak to the supervisors of the subs
only and not to speak to the employees of the subs. The
record does not show that he did other than as directed.
On May 18, 1973, one Donald Shor was hired by FPC as
a material man in the construction department.14 His
duties were to order and receive materials for the jobsite on
behalf of FPC. Shor made certain that deliveries of
materials to the jobsite for FPC were properly received,
receipted for, stored, and distributed as necessary. He had
authority to reject material or to accept it if improperly
delivered. Shor did not participate in the physical unload-
ing of deliveries. When a delivery arrived, Shor contacted
the superintendent of the labor subcontractor who in turn
supplied the labor necessary to unload the shipments. Shor
reported directly to the FPC project manager . His salary
was $130 a week. The record does not show that he
performed any other duties or performed any other labors.
On June 8, 1973, A. L. Grider was employed by FPC to
be a watchman or guard at the Belvedere Boulevard gate.
He was paid at the rate of $2 per hour. Grider's payroll
record showed the word "laborer" crossed out and the
word "guard" written in. This change occurred on July 17,
1973, when this hearing was in session.
On two occasions, June 15 and June 22, 1973, Allan
Orkman was hired by FPC as a maintenance man. Except
11 This takes into consideration replacements in the different positions.
12 The payroll records for Stockweather showed his rate of pay at $2 50
per hour crossed out and a rate of $125 a week inserted instead.
13 FPC payroll records show that Dennison is listed as a construction
foreman and earns $300 a week This fact was pointed out to Gluckstern
for repair work , Orkman generally did the same kind of
work that Stockweather had done . But Orkman was paid
$3 per hour . On Orkman 's payroll records as with Grider
above the word "laborer" was crossed out and the word
"maintenance" written over it. This change in Orkman's
record was also made on July 17. Like Stockweather,
Orkman worked only at the models and general offices.15
F. E. & G. as a Subcontractor
The subcontract between FPC and E. & G. was entered
into on April 9. It provided that FPC was the contractor
and E. & G. was the subcontractor. The subcontractor
agreed "to do all the work and furnish all the materials
required by the terms of the plans, specifications and
drawings, of and from the Carpentry and Labor subcon-
tractor; The contract contained an additional
provision in an attachment designated as "Exhibit A"
providing:
All work performed by Sub-contractor and not a part
of this contract is to be done under the following Wage
Scale:
Laborer: $6.00 per hour including all applicable
taxes, overhead and profit.
Carpenter: $8.00 per hour including all applicable
taxes, overhead and profit.
E. & G. supplied the laborers and carpentry work only
to FPC as provided in the contract. Under the terms of
"Exhibit A" FPC could and did request that E. & G.
supply laborers and carpentry work to other subcontrac-
tors, or directly to FPC for work not required under the
"Carpentry and Labor" provision. Such demands were
made by superintendents of FPC to superintendents of E.
& G. E. & G. would supply the labor and charge FPC at
the rate specified in "Exhibit A." Examples of the type of
work not included in E. & G.'s subcontract were "back
filling the trenches," "clean up of debris that does not
come from [E. & G.'s] work," and the cleaning up of
blocks left by the masonry contractor. The record shows
that when E. & G. complied with FPC's requests the
employees doing the work remained E. & G. employees.
E. & G. has a trailer on the jobsite about one-fourth
of a mile from the Okeechobee gate. Neither it, the trucks
that were used to bring material to the jobsite for E. & G.,
nor E. & G.'s employees carried any marks identifying
their connection with E. & G. Plywood forms used by E. &
G. for construction work had E. & G. on them. It was
doubtful that the general public was aware of or could see
these markings.
E. & G. continuously employed between 30 to 40
employees on the jobsite after May 1, 1973.
Under Palm Beach County law certain contractors, such
as electrical, plumbing, and air conditioning, are required
to register with the county and "pull" (obtain) a permit
who asserted his title was assistant superintendent.
14 The Company's payroll record did not indicate his title.
15 The record contains no evidence that any FPC maintenance man was
ever used on thejobsite in connection with the 250 units
LOCAL 767, LABORERS 589
before they can operate in the county. Such a requirement
does not apply to the type of work performed by E. & G.
Under county law contractors performing the E. & G. type
of work are required to have occupational licenses. To
obtain this license the contractor is required to take an
examination. E. & G. had taken such an examination in
February in Tallahasee and had passed it. There was a
delay in transferring this information to Palm Beach
County. However, the Palm Beach County officials had
knowledge that E. & G. had passed the examination and E.
& G. was permittec to continue to function as a
subcontractor on the jobsite.
G. Laborer's Local 767
The jurisdiction of the Union as to the type of employees
covered is: 16
A. Just about almost every phase of construction
as far as clean-up, pouring of concrete, assisting
masons, assisting carpenters, we do have men in that
classification that covers cleaning of models, cleaning
of windows, bath tubs, apartments in general and
general laborers' work.
In addition, the Union's jurisdiction extends over employ-
ees who are engaged in cleanup work, such as cleanup,
removal of outside trash, moving of furniture, and the
loading and unloading of trucks.
The wage rate for laborers under the local contract was
$6.20 an hour at the time of the hearing and $5.80 per hour
in March.
H. Contracts Between FPC and the Union
1. During the time the models and offices were
in construction
Jon Giardiello since 1965 was business agent for the
Union. In early March 1973, he visited the model units at
the jobsite. There he saw two employees sweating. Both
had shovels in their hands.17 One was a member of Local
767 named Ron Pinta. Giardiello spoke to him. Pinta told
Giardiello that he had been unable to find a job; men were
out of work at the hiring hall; he had come out to FPC and
got the job he was doing; and his pay was $3 an hour. Pinta
did not state how long his job was to continue. At this time
Giardiello spoke to no other employee at the jobsite nor to
any person connected with FPC. Admittedly, he did not
visit the work on the models to demand recognition for the
Union from FPC.
About the end of March, Giardiello visited the model
16 According to the testimony of John Giardiello.
17 The record is not clear as to exactly what work they were doing.
Giardiello first testified they were "grading earth" but retracted this
statement a little later, when questioned by his counsel
Q. These laborers that you said had a shovel .. was this grading
work they were doing?
A. I couldn t honestly say They were cleaning debris and grading
getting ready for sod, 1 guess.
rs At the end of this conversation, Giardiello asked for and received
permission to speak to Jim McGlamery who was then FPCs general
unit again. There he recognized one of the working men he
had seen on the earlier visit. The man was just "piddling
around . . . just cleaning up, I guess ." Giardiello left
without speaking to the employee or anyone else.
On April 17, Giardiello again visited the jobsite. There
he met and spoke with Ralph Howell, project manager for
FPC. There is a conflict in testimony about the conversa-
tion that followed.
According to Giardiello he went to find out how the
construction was going and who the contractor was that
would be doing the construction work. When he met
Howell the latter told him, ". . . that the work was subbed
out to E. & G. Construction Company and I replied, `I
guess I laid an egg.' ..." Then Giardiello pointed out that
"Actually before ... -Mr. Howell said the work was
subbed out he said that Big John was by the project .. .
approximately two weeks prior looking for work and I just
replied, `Well,' because I have a lot of Johns, I don't really
know which one he meant ...: .
According to Howell, he told Giardiello that FPC had a
laborer contractor to handle FPC construction on the site;
it was E. & G. out of Miami; that they were nonunion, and
that Giardiello was welcome to go down to the site and see
them. He also told Giardiello that a fellow named Big John
had been in to see him about 2 weeks before requesting
work as a laborer and mentioned that Giardiello had sent
him. Howell further told Giardiello that "if he had
anybody else to send down to send them to see E. & G.
Construction because we [FPC] were not hiring direct
labor." On cross-examination Howell added that Giardiel-
lo responded that "he guessed he [Giardiello] had laid an
egg out here." 18
Conclusions as to the Conversation of Howell and
Giardiello
In a memorandum filed with FPC immediately after the
conversation with Giardiello, Howell set down the conver-
sation that had occurred . In this memorandum he omitted
any reference to the Big John incident and also any
reference to the statement that "we are not hiring any
direct labor ." 19 These omissions will be dealt with in that
order.
The omission to mention Big John in the memorandum
was not accounted for by Howell . However, there appears
to be no question that "Big John" was mentioned.
Giardiello admitted this when examined by his counsel and
again on cross-examination.
Howell admitted on cross-examination that he did not
tell Giardiello that FPC "was not hiring direct labor." He
explained , "It is essentially what I said . I didn't say it was
superintendent Giardiello had known McGlamery for a good number of
years. According to Giardiello , McGlamery said something about E. & G
and said they were from Miami but he did not know too much about them.
19 The memorandum read as follows:
Howell advised Johnny G. that the labor contractor on the Job was E.
& G. construction and they were nonunion . Florida Planned Commu-
mties have not been able to get a conscientious response to any union
labor contractor. Gresch Bramuci did unrealistically bid our job for
two or two and a half times our estimated cost . In lieu of the negative
action of union labor contractors we entered into an agreement with E
& G. who are presently working on our Job.
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
verbatum, the memorandum. I used the word essentially,
and that's what it was, essentially what I said ... .
Under the circumstances, it is considered that Howell did
not use the words "we are not hiring direct labor" in the
conversation with Giardiello. It is so found. This failure,
however, does not in any way change the impact nor intent
of what Howell said.20 Examination of the conversation as
testified to by Howell with the words "direct labor"
eliminated leave reasonably clear the statement that E. &
G. was the labor subcontractor for FPC and that, if the
Union had any laborers to send out to the jobsite for
employment, they were to contact E. & G. for that
purpose. From the above and from the record as a whole
and as shown in the following paragraph, it was clearly
evident to Giardiello on April 17 that E. & G. was the
laborer subcontractor for FPC and that FPC was not
hiring laborers directly.
On cross-examination Howell accounted for the differ-
ence in his testimony and the memorandum by stating that
the reference to E. & G. was made at the same time he
spoke of Big John. "I enumerated to him [Giardiello] that
if he were to send anybody else out that they were to see E.
& G." No greater significance is placed on the fact that this
statement was not included in the memorandum than is
placed on the fact that the reference to Big John was not
included. Both items are tied into each other. On that
ground, it is reasonable to conclude that, if Big John was
mentioned in the conversation, E. & G. hiring was also
mentioned. The omission to refer to the one in the
memorandum has no greater sigmficance than the omis-
sion to refer to the other.
Finally, it is clear from the record that Giardiello was
aware that Howell was referring to laborers and labor
subcontractors when E. & G. was mentioned. Giardiello
explained what he meant by "laying an egg" that "there
was a contractor there I had never heard of working the
area ."21 He explained further he had never heard of E. &
G. but he was familiar with contractors such as Arnold
Construction and Gresch & Bramuci . He admitted they
were contractors for laborers and carpenters. There is no
question that Giardiello as business agent for the Union
knew what the functions and operations of the different
subcontractors were . It is noted in this connection that
Gresch and Bramuci was the labor contractor mentioned
by Howell in his memorandum.22 Clearly Giardiello told
Howell that in coming out to see FPC about laborers in his
capacity as the union representative he had made an error.
Under the above circumstances and on the record as a
whole, it is found that, on April 17, Giardiello knew that E.
& G. was the laborer subcontractor for FPC and further
knew that laborers on the project were employees of E. &
G. not FPC and would be so in the future.23 It is so found.
20 Both Giardiello and Howell agree that E & G. was mentioned
Howell 's testimony goes further.
21 This does not appear to be a reasonable explanation of the term, either
in the context of the conversation, or its meaning in the vernacular It is my
understanding that the expression means that Giardiello "pulled a boner" or
"made an error "
22 See In 19
2. The May I conversation between Giardiello
and Gluckstern
Giardiello had no other conversation with anyone from
FPC until May 1, when he met Gluckstern, the day
picketing at FPC started.
According to Gluckstern, he arrived at the jobsite at
Okeechobee Boulevard between 8:30 and 9 a.m. Picketing
by the Union had already started. He saw Giardiello and
the pickets and invited Giardiello to have a cup of coffee
with him. They discussed the situation. According to the
credited testimony of Gluckstern, he advised Giardiello he
was sorry to see the Union take that kind of an approach
rather than assisting in finding a competent and reputable
union contractor to do the work that FPC was unable to
do. Giardiello responded he was unaware that FPC could
not obtain a reputable union contract and that he would
look into the matter and contact Gluckstern in about 3
days.
Giardiello in effect agreed with the foregoing. Giardiello
denied that Gluckstern had said anything regarding the
fact that FPC was not employing any laborers or any
employees on the jobsite. Gluckstern did not testify that he
had ever made such a statement .24 However, Gtardiello
without specifying the type of work involved testified that
Gluckstern had mentioned that FPC had had no other bid
than Gresch & Bramuci "to do certain phases of the work
... . As already shown, Giardiello knew the type of
work that Gresch & Bramuci did. Giardiello continued
that E. & G. was discussed by name; that Gluckstern had
stated that E. & G.'s price was reasonable; and that E. &
G. had the manpower to do the job.
Conclusions as to the May I conversation
It is reasonable to conclude that Gluckstern told
Giardiello about "the work that FPC was unable to do."
Further, from the record as a whole , there is no question
that Giardiello understood that Gluckstern was referring to
the work that E. & G. was performing under the
subcontract. Though not stated by Gluckstern, Giardiello
admitted that the conversation dealt with E. & G. Very
carefully and guardedly Giardiello cloaked his knowledge
of the work in question by stating that Gluckstern referred
to "certain phases of the work." The record shows clearly
that before May 125 Gtardiello knew that E. & G. was the
laborer subcontractor. It has been found that Howell had
informed Giardiello to that effect on April 17. Nothing in
the record has been brought out to change that finding or
to show that circumstances at the jobsite had changed
since.
At an unspecified time after April 17, Giardiello checked
with the county and was told that E. & G. was not licensed.
He asserted he checked no further either at the county or at
the jobsite. The lack of license caused him to figure "it was
a shell and may be these people working there were
23 This is further supported by Giardiello' s statement that he knew that
E & G "would be-using laborers and carpenters "
24 This is another instance where Giardtello "protests too much " In
effect , his denial of an unmade statement is evidence that he knew that FPC
had no such employees
25 The day the picketing started.
LOCAL 767, LABORERS
working directly for Florida Planned Communities." This
quoted statement is an admission by Giardiello that before
May I he was aware that the laborers working at the
jobsite were E. & G. employees. The record contains no
clarification of the quoted statement. But it is considered
most revealing of the knowledge that Giardiello had at the
time concerning the employment situation. The most
reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the "shell"
statement is that E. & G. was the publicized or known
employer of the laborers but only so for the purpose of
coverup of the real fact that FPC was the actual employer.
This clearly shows that Giardiello was on notice that E. &
G. was the subcontractor and employer of the laborers. It
clarifies the use of his "laid an egg" term on April 17 and
supports Howell's testimony that on that day he notified
Giardiello of the E. & G. facts. It is so found.
1. The Picketing at Golden Lakes Village
On May 1, about 7:45 a.m., pickets appeared at the
jobsite bearing picket signs. Picketing took place at the
gates located at Okeechobee Boulevard, Belvedere Boule-
vard, and Skees Road.26 The pickets' signs at the Belvedere
Road and Skees Road gates read as follows:
Notice to Public, Florida Planned Communities and E.
& G. Construction Company lowers the standards of
conditions of Laborer's Local Union No. 767. For any
information call Cy Gropman, Area Code 305 +
947-4521.27
For the period between May 1 and 15 some of the Union's
picket signs bore the name of FPC or E. & G. singly in
addition to the combination cited above. After May 15,
only the cited sign was used.
J. Materials Are Not Delivered Because of the
Picketing
On May 4, 1973, Rinker Materials28 Corporation
attempted to make a delivery of concrete block and steel at
the Belvedere Boulevard entrance. The delivery was
stopped by the pickets and not made. On the evening of
May 4, FPC posted a sign on the entrances to the jobsite
on Skees Road stating that the entrance was for the use of
Rinker Materials. On May 5, Rinker made some deliveries
through Skees Road entrances. After each delivery pickets
appeared carrying the same sign that was used on
Belvedere Boulevard. At that time, Rinker advised FPC
that they were unable to continue makmg deliveries to the
jobsite and thereafter discontinued making any deliveries.
FPC arranged to purchase materials from another contrac-
tor but did their own trucking to accomplish delivery.
26 The picket signs at the Okeechobee gate read as follows.
Notice to Public. Florida Planned Communities, E & G Construction
Company, lower standards of carpenters We have no dispute with any
other contractor on this job This picket is not intended to cause any
other employees to stop work or stop deliveries Palm Beach Carpenters
District Council
Flyers were also distributed at the Okeechobee gate Neither the
picketing nor the flyers at the Okeechobee gate are alleged by the General
Counsel as violations
27 Cy Gropman was chief counsel for the Union The posted number was
591
K. Gates and Signs Established by FPC
After May 1
After the picketing started, FPC established specific
gates to be used by its employees and the employees of its
subcontractors. All the employees were instructed to and
did use separate gates.
On May 3, at the Okeechobee Boulevard entrance, FPC
put a sign stating that the gate (No. 1) was for the
"exclusive use of the employees of the following companies
only: E. & G. Construction Company, Harbeke Plumbing
Company, Higgins Electric Company. All other employees
are to use Gate No. 2."
As stated above, on May 4 FPC posted signs on the
Skees Road entrances that they were to be used by Rinker
Materials Corporation.
Later in May, the second gate was established for the
exclusive use of the employees of FPC and E. & G.
In the early part of June the gate signs were changed. At
Okeechobee Boulevard one gate sign read: "E. & G.
Construction, Florida Planned Communities, all other
employees" to use another designated gate. Another sign
for another gate nearby read: "For exclusive use of
employees of Florida Planned Communities, Inc." The
gate at Belvedere Road stated, "For use by employees of
all contractors except Florida Planned Communities, E. &
G. Construction Company." Employees of the named
contractors were to use another designated gate only.
L. On June 13, the Union Ceases Picketing FPC
On June 13 , 1973, the attorneys for the Union sent a
telegram to the Board at its Coral Gables office reading as
follows:
REGARDING FLORIDA PLANNED COMMUNITIES
INCORPORATED CASE NUMBER 12-cc-337 ON JUNE 12,
1972 LABORERS LOCAL 767, THROUGH ITS UNDERSIGNED
COUNSEL, WAS FIRST NOTIFIED BY YOU THAT FLORIDA
PLANNED COMMUNITIES INC. DOES NOT EMPLOY ANY
EMPLOYEES AT THE JOB SITE INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE
CHARGE AND THE E AND G IS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR
AND DOES EMPLOYEE [SIC] EMPLOYEES WHO ARE THE
SUBJECT OF OUR CURRENT DISPUTE. BASED ON THIS
OFFICIAL NOTICE, WE ARE, THIS DATE, CHANGING OUR
PICKETING SIGNS TO READ E AND G ONLY.
On June 13, 1973, the picket signs were altered. Florida
Planned Communities, Inc., was deleted from the signs on
Belvedere Boulevard and Skees Road.29 The signs then
read:
Notice to Public: E. & G. Construction lowers the
his telephone number. Reference is later made to his testimony in this
proceeding
28 The Rinker incident was not alleged as a violation in the complaint
and was not admitted to show a violation. The incident was received to
show motivation and intent with regard to the alleged illegal conduct and to
assist in framing the remedy if the violation alleged in the complaint were
found . The General Counsel contended that the Rinker incidents flowed
from the alleged illegal conduct
29 The picket sign on Okeechobee Boulevard was also altered to
eliminate E . & G leaving only FPC. But as stated in In. 26, no violation is
alleged as to that picket action
592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
standards of conditions of Laborers Local Union No.
767. For any information call Cy Gropman, Area Code
305 + 947-2521.
The picketing with the altered signs continued and was
occurring at the time of the hearing.
Analysis and Conclusions
1. Contentions of the parties
The General Counsel's only contention in this proceed-
ing is that the Union from May I on engaged in common
situs picketing in violation of the fourth criterion30
established by the Board in Moore Dry Dock31 and
summarized by the Supreme Court in Local 761, Interna-
tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO [General Electric] v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. at 677
(1961), as follows:
(1) That the picketing be limited to times when the situs
of the dispute was located on the secondary premises;
(2) that the primary employer be engaged in his normal
business at the situs; (3) that the picketing take place
reasonably close to the situs; and (4) that the picketing
clearly disclose that the dispute was only with the
primary employer.
The Union contends as its argument in chief that FPC
was a primary employer not a secondary employer; that
picketing in connection with a dispute between the Union
and FPC was primary picketing and was not in violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) or (ii)(B) of the Act. This contention is
based mainly on the fact that the Union had no knowledge
until June 13 that FPC employed no laborers.
2. Discussion
The record shows that the Union was aware prior to
May I that E. & G. was a nonunion employer and was
paying its employees wages less than was called for under
going union contracts. The Union admits that it was
engaged in a primary dispute with E. & G. In furtherance
of this dispute and apparently to protect the Union's wage
scale and other conditions of employment, the Union
picketed Golden Lakes Village where E. & G. was carrying
out the terms of the subcontract. There is no question that
as to E. & G. the picketing was in furtherance of the
Union's recognized objective 32
It is undisputed that the Union was engaged in common
situs picketing. As stated above, the only question raised is
whether criterion four of the Moore Dry Dock criteria was
violated. On the facts as presented, the inclusion of FPC's
name on the picket signs at the Belvedere Boulevard and
Skees Road gates clearly discloses that the dispute was not
only with E. & G. the primary employer but also with FPC,
another employer. Absent a showing that FPC is a party to
30 The original record did not contain the word "fourth" before the word
"criteria." After receipt of the transcript the General Counsel moved to
amend the record among other things to have the word "fourth" inserted.
No objection was received. The motion is granted The Union also moved
to amend the record That motion without objection is also granted. Both
motions are ordered filed as part of the record herein.
the dispute between E. & G. and the Union, FPC is a
neutral employer. Thus, the picketing which was directed
against FPC and E. & G. violated the fourth criterion of
Moore Dry Dock in that it did not "clearly disclose that the
dispute was only with [E. & G.] the primary employer."
3. The Union's contentions
The Union, as stated above, defends its actions by
asserting that it had a primary dispute with FPC. The
record herein does not support the Union's contention.
The record is clear that at no time while any work was
going on at the jobsite did FPC employ any laborers except
casual employees and a maintenance person . These latter
when employed worked only at the model units and
offices. FPC employed no laborers in connection with the
construction of the 250 units of the first development.
Admittedly, Giardiello was aware of the type of labor
that was being used in connection with the construction of
the model units. He visited the models twice in March,
spoke to the casual employees, one of whom was a union
member, and found out that they were being paid $3 per
hour which was almost 50 percent of the union scale. The
Union did nothing as a result of these visits and did not
communicate with FPC in any way. During this time
construction laborers were also working on the model site
in connection with the building of the models and the
offices. They were employees of the subcontractor South
Coast Builders. The Union's inaction with regard to FPC
during the time the models were being constructed was a
clear indication that it was aware that the casuals were
FPC employees and the laborers were South Coast
employees.
More importantly, the record clearly shows that, at least
by April 17, the Union had knowledge that FPC was hiring
no construction laborers either during the construction of
the models or later when the 250 unit development started.
In view of these facts, the defenses raised by the Union, in
essence based on the absence of knowledge, cannot be
taken seriously.
On April 17, Giardiello and Howell held the conversa-
tion which ended with Giardiello 's statement that he had
"laid an egg." As found, it was in this conversation that
Howell notified Giardiello that the laborer and carpentry
subcontract had been given to E. & G ., a nonunion
subcontractor and that applications for employment by
union members or others should be made to E. & G. To a
man of Giardiello's experience this was clear notice that
FPC was not hiring and in the future would not hire this
type of labor. That Giardiello was in fact aware that E. &
G. was doing the hiring was clearly shown by his "shell"
statement after he had checked with the county licensing
department and found that E. & G. was not registered.
As the Union asserts in its brief, the Union did not have
to take such "notification" at face value.33 But the record
shows that other than checking with the county as stated
31 Sailors ' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Company); 92 NLRB
547, 549(1950).
32 The contention that this was purely informational picketing is
rejected. Cf. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO (Mansfi eld Contracting Corporation) 205 NLRB No. 89.
33 See Plumbers ' Local Union No. 519 United Association of Journeymen
LOCAL 767, LABORERS 593
above, the Union, after April 17, made no reasonable
attempt to verify Howell's statement, or to determine
whether FPC did or did not employ construction laborers
directly. The record shows no evidence that Giardiello or
any union official at any time thereafter visited the.jobsite,
questioned any employees as to their employer,34 ques-
tioned any official of FPC to verify or inquire into the
accuracy or validity of the April 17 statement, or
questioned whether any change in the contract situation
had or was going to occur. When he was put on notice by
the licensing department that E. & G. had not been issued
a license or permit, Giardiello did not come back to
question Howell or any official of FPC on the subject. Had
he done so his doubts would have been resolved. Such
return would have been a reasonable and prudent action.
His failure to do so supports the conclusion that he was
aware of and accepted the accuracy of Howell's statement.
It is concluded from the foregoing and the record as a
whole that Giardiello t.nd the Union were at no time and
in no way misled by the fact that FPC employed some
casual labor and a female to do maintenance work at the
models and the offices. It is further concluded that no
action by FPC has been shown that misled the Union.
Finally, it is concluded that the Union was given notice
and had knowledge of the subcontracting situation. Any
failure to verify or check that information is attributable
only to the Union. Its subsequent actions based on such
failure are the Union's responsibilities.
The same line of reasoning applies to the assertion of the
Union that they were unable to tell who the employees
were that were working at the models and the jobsite.
These employees were doing the kind of work that was
within the Union's jurisdiction. They wore no identifying
marks and insofar as the Umon was concerned they were
employees of FPC. This is too naive a position for an old
line experienced business agent to advance. In any event,
as stated above, there was nothing that prevented the
Union from finding out by inquiring or otherwise whose
employees they were. As the hearing proceeded, the Union
gave the definite impression that it was building up its case
from the information first heard and gleaned from the
records produced at the hearing which it had seen for the
first time.35
It is concluded from the foregoing and the record as a
whole that (1) Giardiello knew at all times that FPC
employed at the models and offices some casual labor to
clean up and do maintenance work including one female
and (2) from the time work started on the first develop-
ment of 250 units, Giardiello knew of no construction
and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States
and Canada, AFL-CIO (H L Robertson & Associates, Inc), 171 NLRB 251,
258.
34 In the manner that Giardiello did the casual employees in March
35 For example , the changes in the Company's employment records to
delete "laborer." The reliance upon casual employees shown to have been
employed after May 1, or the reference to the title "construction foreman."
of Dennison employed on May II called "assistant supenntendent" by
Gluckstern.
36 The record shows that on May II Dennison was hired (see sec. E,
above), and on May 18 Shot was hired as a material man Giardiello first
became aware of these employees at the hearing
31 The contention is also rejected as improbable that the dispute with
FPC was over the employment of the clerical and other employees of FPC.
Without questioning the legality of the position taken, there is nothing in the
laborer or other laborer that was employed by FPC to
work on that development 36 Thus, at the time the
picketing started, the only FPC employees admittedly
within the Union's jurisdiction were those employed at the
models 37 The record clearly shows that no action was
taken by the Union relative to those employees; nor is
there any evidence that the Union had intended to take
any action with regard to them. It is neither reasonable nor
creditable on the basis of the foregoing and the record as a
whole to find that the action of naming FPC on the picket
signs on May 1, constituted the commencement either of
primary picketing by the Union, or of a primary dispute
between FPC and the Union.
The Union also contends that it "had every right to
assume FPC was continually employing laborers at the
Golden Lakes Village jobsite ... and that duty lay with
FPC to affirmatively notify [the Union] of the so-called
absence of laborers from the jobsite." Having found that
the Union was given affirmative notice there is no need to
discuss the question of FPC's duty to inform the Union of
the fact that FPC was not employing laborers. It has
already been found that the Union' s actions after the
notice were neither reasonable nor prudent with regard to
that notice. The record does not show that FPC was
playing a "cat and mouse" game with the Union as the
Union asserts.38 The absence of construction laborers was
permanent not temporary or intermittent. Both during the
construction of the models and of the first development
FPC subcontracted laborer and carpenter work first to
South Coast Contractors and then to E. & G. Nothing in
the record herein indicates that FPC intended to hire
construction laborers, or that FPC in any way misled the
Union or gave it any untrue information. The Union points
to no evidence to that effect. Under the circumstances the
Union engaged in its picketing campaign at its own peril 39
The Union alternatively takes the position that it has the
right to engage in picketing activities at FPC's primary
place of business, requesting FPC to enter into a
subcontractor's agreement or clause agreeing to use only
employers who are signatory to collective-bargaining
agreements with the Union covering construction sites
only. The Union asserts that this type of subcontractor's
agreement or subcontractor' s clause falls within the
construction industry's proviso to Section 8(e) and that
picketing to obtain such a clause is legal.
It is considered that the 8(e) position taken by the Union
in this proceeding is an afterthought and frivolous. No
discussion is needed as to the right of the Umon to picket
in order to obtain such an agreement or clause. The facts in
record to show that , prior to May 1. the Union in any way indicated to FPC
that it was interested in the other employees . It is considered reasonable to
conclude that the Union advanced this contention after the fact or, to quote
Giardiello, as a "shell" to cover its improper action of May I picketing
38 The cases cited by the Union to support this point are inapposite:
Industrial Contracting Company, 192 NLRB 1188, enfd . 82 LRRM 2687
(C.A D.C, 1972); International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 640,
AFL-CIO, 176 NLRB 150; New Power Wire and Electrical Corp., et al, 144
NLRB 1089, enfd . in pertinent part 340 F 2d 71 (C.A 2. 1965); International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 861, AFL-CIO (Brownfield Electric,
Inc), 145 N LRB 1163
39 It is considered of no significance or weight that several weeks after
May I counsel for the Union gave his legal opinion that FPC's picketing
was legal
594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this case do not show in any way that a purpose of the
picketing was to obtain such a clause from FPC. The
Union's position is accordingly rejected.
The Union, in its brief and at the hearing, listed a large
number of items called the responsibilities of FPC as a
general contractor in relation to the subcontractors.
Some of these were that (1) subcontracts are performed
in accord with FPC's obligation to the Palm Beach County
Building and Zoning Department; (2) the Construction
Board of Palm Beach County looks to FPC for responsibil-
ity for all construction and for the project to see that (a) it
is built in a safe and orderly manner; (b) the subcontrac-
tors are licensed; (c) the work of the subcontractor is
properly completed; and (3) FPC has overall financial
responsibility and credit responsibility.
Other responsibilities were (1) FPC has a fence around
the project for protection of property and to keep the
public out; (2) FPC has the right to terminate or discharge
a contractor for improper work; (3) FPC is required to
make certain that the subcontractors are licensed, have a
certificate of competency, and carry workmen's compensa-
tion and liability insurance for their respective work
people; (4) FPC had the right to and ordered signs at the
different gates to be used by subcontractors; (5) FPC
coordinates the work of the subcontractors to maintain a
reasonable and sequential flow of work; (6) FPC orders
materials and supplies for the project but the labor to
unload or deal with the same was supplied by E. & G.; and
(7) FPC was responsible for safety conditions and required
the subcontractors to comply with them under the
contract.
The Union contends that because of these responsibili-
ties and obligations FPC, in effect or in essence, became
the technical employer of the employees of E. & G. and
other subcontractors. The Union contends that, as a result,
the picketing by the Union of FPC became primary
picketing and was not proscribed by Section 8(b)(4). This
position is not supported by the record and is rejected.40
Nothing in the record herein supports the Union's position.
The relationship between FPC and the subcontractors is
clearly contractual. The employees of E. & G. and the
other subcontractors are employees only of the respective
employers. As a matter of fact the contract with E. & G.
makes provision for the use of E. & G. employees by FPC
and by other subcontractors on the jobsite. But the
contract clearly sets forth that when they are so used they
remain E. & G. employees. Arrangement for their use must
be made through the superintendent of E. & G. and E. &
G. makes a specific charge to the user of the employees
payable to E. & G. The rate of this charge is higher than
the rate paid to E. & G. employees by E. & G. because the
overcharge takes into consideration overhead and other
expenses of E. & G. in accommodating FPC and the other
contractors.4 i
4. Final conclusions
The foregoing analysis has dealt with some of the major
defenses raised by the Union . Others have been considered
and found wanting .42 It is concluded as a result of these
analyses and the record as a whole that the Union was not
engaged in a primary dispute with or primary picketing of
FPC on May 1, when it picketed the Belvedere Boulevard
and Skees Road gates carrying picket signs directed to
FPC and E. & G.
Accordingly , it is concluded and found that the Union's
use of picket signs bearing both names of FPC and E. & G.
was not permissible common situs picketing in that it did
not clearly disclose that the dispute was only with E. & G.
the primary employer.
Respondent 's admitted picketing of the Golden Lakes
Village job plainly constituted inducement and encourage-
ment of the employees of FPC and other subcontractors on
the jobsite to engage in strikes or refusals in the course of
their employment to perform services within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(4)(i). That such inducement and encourage-
ment also constituted restraint and coercion of the
employers , within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(4)(u), is also
well settled . International Hod Carriers, Building and
Common Laborers Union of America, Local No. 1140,
AFL-CIO (Gilmore Construction Company), 127 NLRB
541, 545, footnote 6, enfd. 285 F .2d 397 (C.A. 8, 1960). On
the entire record, it is found and concluded that an object
of the Union 's picketing was to force (at least) FPC to
cease doing business with E . & G. Accordingly, the
combined picketing of FPC and E. & G. at Golden Lakes
Village violated Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
N. L. R. B. v. Denver Building & Construction Trades Council,
341 U.S. 675.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. FPC and E . & G. are engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By picketing the Golden Lakes Village project with
picket signs that did not clearly disclose that the Union
had a dispute only with E. & G., the Union engaged in
conduct violative of the Act.
4. By picketing the Golden Lakes Village project, the
,Union induced and encouraged individuals employed by
FPC and other subcontractors on the project to engage in a
strike or refusal in the course of their employment to use,
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or
work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to
perform services, and also by said picketing coerced and
restrained FPC and other subcontractors.
40 International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 675 (Industrial
Contracting Co) 192 NLRB 1188, enfd 82 LRRM 2687 (C A D C, 1972), is
inapposite under the circumstances.
41 Cf N L R B v. General Drivers & Dairy Employees, Local Union No
563, et al, cert denied 404 U S. 912 (1971), Carpet, Linoleum, Soft Tile, and
Resilient Floor Covering Layers, Local Union No 419 AFL-CIO v N L R B,
467 F.2d 392, 399-401, 405-406 (C.A.D C., 1972), N L. R B v Dallas
General Drivers, etc, Local No 745, 264 F 2d 642, 647 (C A. 5, 1959), cert
denied 361 U S 814 (1959 ), Retail Fruit & Vegetable Clerks Union v
NLRB, 249 F.2d 591, 594-595 (C A 9, 1957 ), see generally NLRB v
United Insurance Co, 390 US 254 (1968)
42 The Union in its brief stated that the "related work" issue raised at the
inception of the trial has not been argued The Union made reference to
N L. R B v Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, 341 U S 675
Further, the Union stated that the General Counsel was contending that the
Union violated criterion two of the Moore Dry Dock cntena
LOCAL 767, LABORERS
5. An object of the Union's picketing was to force or
require FPC to cease doing business with E. & G.
6. By the conduct set forth in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5,
the Union engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act.
7. The said unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B)
of the Act, it is recommended that the Union be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom, and to take the affirmative
action herein provided, designed to remedy the unfair
labor practices herein found and to effectuate the policies
of the Act.43
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, there is issued the following recommended:
ORDER44
Local Union No. 767, Laborers International Union of
North America , AFL-CIO , its officers, agents, and
representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or encouraging employees or individuals
employed by Florida Planned Communities , Inc., or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce with whom they have no primary labor
dispute , to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of
their employment to use , manufacture , process, transport,
or otherwise handle or work on any goods , articles,
materials, or commodities or perform any services where
an object thereof is to force or require the above-named
persons to cease doing business with E . & G. Construction
Co., Inc.
(b) Threatening , restraining, or coercing Florida Planned
Communities , Inc., cr any other persons engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , where an
object thereof is to force or require FPC to cease doing
business with E . & G. Construction Co., Inc.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is found
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices, meeting halls , and all other places
where notices to its members are customarily posted,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 45
Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 12 shall, after being duly signed by a
representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Union
immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Union to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(b) Promptly after receipt thereof, sign and return to the
said Regional Director , the number of copies of the
aforesaid notice the latter may request , for posting by
595
Florida Planned Communities , Inc., and E. & G. Construc-
tion Co., Inc., at all places where notices to their respective
employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt by the Union of a
copy of this Decision , what steps the Union has taken to
comply herewith.
43 This recommendation is made even though the illegal picketing of
FPC by the Union at the project has ceased. The purpose of the remedy is
to effectuate the preventive purposes of the Act Local Union No. 519,
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe
Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (Center
Plumbing and Heating Corp.), 145 NLRB 215.
44 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.
41, 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 read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT engage in or induce or encourage any
individual employed by Florida Planned Communities,
Inc., or by any other person engaged in commerce or in
industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or
refusal in the course of their employment to use,
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or
work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities,
or to perform services ; or threaten , coerce, or restrain
Florida Planned Communities, Inc., 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 it to cease doing business with E. & G.
Construction Co., Inc.
LOCAL UNION No. 767,
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 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, Room
706, Federal Office Building , 500 Zack Street , P.O. Box
3322, Tampa, Florida 33602, Telephone 813-228-7210.