Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 801 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS
Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO; Carpenters Local No. 1062,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO; Carpenters Local No. 1506,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO; and Shinglers' Local No.
1125, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join-
ers of America, AFL-CIO; Associated General
Contractors of California, Inc.; and Building Indus-
try Association of California, Inc. and Coast Con-
struction Company, Inc. Case 21 -CE- 159
June 6, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
Upon a charge filed by Coast Construction Com-
pany, Inc. (herein Coast or Charging Party), on July
22, 1976, and duly served on Respondent Unions'
and Respondent Associations,2 the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, acting
through the Regional Director for Region 21, on
March 25, 1977, issued and served on Respondents a
complaint and notice of hearing, alleging that Re-
spondent Unions and Respondent Associations had
violated Section 8(e) of the Act.3 Respondents filed
answers; and on October 31, 1977, Respondent
Unions, Respondent Associations, Coast, and the
General Counsel filed with the Board a motion to
transfer the proceedings to the Board and a stipula-
tion of facts. The parties stipulated to the contents of
the record and agreed that no oral testimony was nec-
essary or desired. They further stipulated that they
waived a hearing before an administrative law judge,
the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law
by an administrative law judge, and the issuance of
an administrative law judge's decision, and that they
desired to submit this case for findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and order directly to the Board. By order
dated February 24, 1978, the Board granted the mo-
I Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters. United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (herein District Council);
Carpent-rs Local No. 1062, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America. AFL-CIO (herein Local 1062i: Carpenters Local No 1506.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. AFL-CIO
(herein Local 1506); and Shinglers' Local No. 1125. United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America. AFL CIO (herein ocal 1125)
2 Associated General Contractors of California. Inc. (herein AGC): and
Building Industry Association of California, Inc. (herein BIA).
'The complaint alleged that by reason of a grievance proceeding under
the bargaining contract Respondent Unions and Respondent Associations
had "invoked. reaffirmed, given effect to., and reentered into the provisions of
Sections 103, 103.1, 103 2. 103.3. and 306 of the Master Labor Agree-
ment . . .
tion, approved the stipulation of facts, and trans-
ferred the proceedings to the Board. Thereafter, briefs
were filed by the General Counsel, the Charging
Party, Respondent Unions, and Respondent Associ-
ations.
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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record stipu-
lated by the parties and the briefs filed by the parties
and hereby makes the following findings and conclu-
sions:
I. THE BSINESS OF THE EMPL.OYERS
Respondent Associations, composed of various em-
ployers in the building and construction industry in
the State of California, engage in collective bargain-
ing for, and negotiate collective-bargaining agree-
ments on behalf of, their respective employer-mem-
bers with various labor organizations, including
Respondent Unions. The employer-members of Re-
spondent Associations which participate in multiem-
ployer, multiassociation bargaining through the Asso-
ciations are engaged in business in California as
contractors in the building and construction industry.
have their principal offices and places of' business in
the State of California. and, in the aggregate, annu-
ally purchase and received goods and products val-
ued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers lo-
cated outside the State of California.
The parties stipulated and we find that Respondent
Associations and their employer-members are em-
ployers, and each of them is an employer. engaged in
commerce and in a business affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(o) and (7) of the Act.
Coast is engaged in business as a general contractor
and as an owner-builder and developer in the build-
ing and construction industry in southern California
and has an office in Santa Ana. California. In the
normal course and conduct of its business operations.
Coast annually purchases and receives goods and
products valued in excess of $50.000 directly from
suppliers located in the State of California, which, in
turn, purchase and receive those same goods and
products directly from suppliers located outside the
State of California.
Coast is, and has been at all times material herein.
an employer engaged in commerce and illn a business
affecting commerce within the meaninig of Section
2(6) and (7) and Section 8(e) of the Act.
II. THI I.ABOR ORGANIZAI IONS INV()I V\I)
The parties stipulated and we find that each of Re-
spondent Unions is. and at all times material herein
242 NLRB No. 127
801
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
has been, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. IlE AII.EGEI) UNFAIR I.ABOR PRACTICES
A. The Stipulated Facts
On or about July 27, 1974, Respondent Associ-
ations and Respondent Unions entered into a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, referred to as the Master
Labor Agreement (herein MLA), effective on or
about July 27, 1974, until June 15, 1977.4 Coast, an
employer-member of Respondent Association BIA
until on or about July 1, 1976, was bound to the
MLA throughout its term under section 203 of the
MLA.
The following provisions of the MLA are pertinent
to this case:
103. The Contractor agrees that he or any of his
subcontractors on the jobsite will not contract or
subcontract work to be done at the site of con-
struction, alteration, painting, or repair of a
building, structure, or other work, except to a
person, firm or corporation, party to an appro-
priate, current labor agreement with the appro-
priate Union, or subordinate body, affiliated
with the Building and Construction Trades De-
partment, AFL-CIO, or with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, or an affiliate
thereof.
103.1 A subcontractor for the purposes of this
Agreement, with the exception of the general
provision immediately above, is defined as any
person, firm or corporation holding a valid State
Contractors' License and agrees under contract
in writing with the Contractor or in writing with
his subcontractors to perform any work covered
by this Agreement, and employs workmen as
employees to perform services covered by this
Agreement, including the performance of labor,
and/or furnishing or installation of material, or
the operation of equipment. All employees of
subcontractors will perform work at the appro-
priate hourly rate and will be reported to such
trust funds as required by the Agreement.
4Parties to the MLA were: A((': BIA;: he Engineering and (rading
Contractors Association, Inc (herein Engineering)l the I. nderground Etigi-
neering Contractors Association (herein Underground Engineering) and the
District Councils and Local Unions in the Eleven Southern ('alitornia (Coun-
ties affiliated with the Utnited Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners o,
America.
103.2 All work performed by the Contractors or
subcontractors and all services rendered for the
Contractors or subcontractors, as herein defined,
shall be rendered in accordance with each and
all of the terms and provisions hereof.
103.3 If the Contractor or subcontractors shall
subcontract jobsite work covered under the juris-
diction of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, including the furnishing
and installation of material, performance of la-
bor, and the operation of equipment, provision
shall be made in written contract for the observ-
ance and compliance by his subcontractors with
the full terms of this Agreement.
306. Nothing contained in this Agreement, or
any part thereof, shall affect or apply to the
Union in any action it may take against any
Contractor or subcontractor who has failed, ne-
glected or refused to comply with or execute any
settlement or decision reached at any step of the
grievance procedure or through Arbitration un-
der the terms of Article V hereof....
Around the middle of 1975. the employer contrac-
tors became concerned as to the impact of the Su-
preme Court's decision in Connell Construction Co.5
on the MLA's subcontracting clauses. On July 22,
1975, the contractors' negotiating committee wrote to
representatives of the carpenter labor organizations
and of the other basic construction craft organiza-
tions, requesting a meeting to discuss the matter and
stating that the contractors would give no further
force or effect to any illegal subcontracting provi-
sions. On July 29 the negotiating committee notified
the Southern California Conference of Carpenters
that section 103 of the MLA would not be given force
or effect. And on July 1., 1975. AGC advised its mem-
bers by bulletin that the subcontracting clauses in the
MLA were illegally broad.
On September 16, 1975, a meeting was held be-
tween representatives of the contractors, including
Respondent Associations. and representatives of ba-
sic construction craft unions, including carpenter or-
ganizations. The contractors stated that they would
give effect to the subcontracting clauses in each of the
master labor agreements only insofar as the agree-
ments limited subcontracting of "unit work," i.e..
work covered by the particular agreement. Respon-
dent Unions isagreed with the position of the con-
' ( ne/l ( ontirwi toni Co. I. v Plwmher & Si itmier tLeal .t ..on INo
lt0. e, 421 S. 616 1975)
802
I.OS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS
tractors and requested that the letter of July 29, 1975,
be withdrawn. The contractors denied the request. 6
In the spring of 1976 Respondent Unions and
Charging Party Coast became involved in a dispute
over subcontracting at a housing construction project
at Whittier, California. where Coast was engaged in
operations as owner-builder and contractor from
about October 1975 until July 1976. Coast did not
employ any employees within the craft jurisdiction of
Respondent Unions on the Whittier project.7 It sub-
contracted roofing work at Whittier to R. A. Ennis
Roofing Company (herein Ennis),' and drywall work
to A-Day Drywall Company (herein A-Day).9 The
employees of Ennis and A-Day did not designate any
of Respondent Unions as their collective-bargaining
representative, and neither Ennis nor A-Day had a
collective-bargaining agreement with any labor or-
ganization.
In late April and early May 1976 representatives of
Respondent Locals 1506 and 1125 and of Roofers Lo-
cal Union 36 visited the Whittier iobsite several times
separately and, on occasion, together. They protested
the nonunion status of A-Day and Ennis and de-
manded that the subcontractors sign a collective-bar-
gaining agreement. The5 advised the president of
Coast and the owners of A-Day and Ennis that Coast
was a member of BIA and obligated under the sub-
contracting provisions of the MLA, and that if Coast
did not comply with those provisions the labor or-
ganizations would file a grievance. They also told
Coast that the Whittier project could be picketed, but
no picketing took place.
On May 4. 1976, District Council on behalf of Lo-
cals 1125 and 1506, filed a grievance under the provi-
sions of the MLA. protesting Coast's subcontracting
of roofing and drywall work at the Whittier project to
Ennis and A-Day, contending that the conduct vio-
lated the MLA, article , and all its subdivisions. A
hearing was held betore the Joint Adjustment Board.
consisting of representatives of Local 1602, District
Council. AGC. BIA, and Underground Engineer-
I On July 28. 1976, he Southern (Calililrnl (onference of ( arpenters filed
a charge in Case 31 A 6315. alleging that the emploer asocllitrins had
unilaterall> modfied the subcontracting provisons of the M11 l Ihe (;en-
eral Counsel dismissed the charge
C (oast had no other jobs on which it had employees performing field
construction work n the ear preceding August 1976 ( dosit id not emploNs
any employees within the craft jurLsdiction Respondent niomns it an
time pr: i to October 1976. In the sear preceding Mas 4. 1976. ('oast em-
ployed one laborer. one brick mason, and on, brick tender. It subcontracted
all other craft work
I Ennis installed six wood shake roo., and three tile rools tlhe work (of
Installing the wood shake rootfs which t)k place from March 23 through
May I, 1976. was work which fails within the detinition ot "Work (osered-
in article XI of the MIA. Ennis employed fi.e emploees, primarIly to nstall
the wood shake roofs, and tnnis' o ner .nd one employee installed the tile
roofs.
A-D)ay nstalled drywall hetueel April 23 aInd Jlb I. 1976h 1 emploled
sesen dryall hangers and ise tapers
ing.t" On July 2, 1976, the Joint Adjustment Board
issued its decision finding that Coast had violated sec-
tions 103.1. 103.2. and 103.3 of the MLAI by its sub-
contracting with Ennis and directing Coast to pay
$5,000 to the Southern California Construction Car-
penters health and welfare fund as penalty. 'The Joint
Adjustment Board refused to sustain the grievance
against Coast for subcontracting drywall work to A-
DaNy. 2 and that part of the decision was referred to
arbitration at the request of [)istrict ('ouncil. Arbitra-
tion was postponed, and no arbitration had taken
place at the time the stipulation was entered into.
B. The Isues and (Com'nteions
The General Counsel alleges that Respondent As-
sociations and Respondent Unions, through the
grievance involving Coast. reaffirmed subcontracting
restrictions which are proscribed bh Section 8 (e) and
are not protected by the construction industrN proviso
to Section 8(e) in view of' the Supreme C'ourt's inter-
pretation of the proviso in ('Connell .vurp7a. and in view
of related self-enforcement measures in the contract.
Respondents disagree with the General Counsel's
view of the Connell decision. Respondent Associ-
ations further contend that the subcontracting provi-
sions are primary work preservation clauses, and that
the self-enforcement provision attacked by the Gen-
eral Counsel is not unlawful.
C. Discu.ssion and C11(( otlc/L.iot
We conclude that the subcontracting proxisions in
issue constitute restrictions on doing business within
the meaning of Section 8(e). Section 103 is a "union
signatory' clause, as it plainlN requires that subcon-
tracting he imited to persons part to a current labor
agreement with a labor organniza tion affilia ted with
the Building and ('onstruction rades Department.
AFI. CIO. or with the International Brotherhood ofl
Teamsters. The related sections 103.2 and 103.3 are
also "union signatory" clauses because they restrict
subcontracting to persons ho observe "all of the
terms" or "''the full terms" of the contract. thus requir-
ing subcontractors to do more than maintain union
work standards. L' The Board has found "union signa-
1o t nder sec 505 of the M11. A. decisions or the .In dn l d , !lim enIl Boaird re
binding not only on the griesanis. hut also n all paries Ii the Mi .
H The Joinl Adjustmenl Bloard made no finding tha ( . t hd l olaled
sec 103 oif the Nil A
` The entploer representativ e, on the Jilni A\djustlmenl Board ere l
the vie, that the drsu.lIl (ork niolved .as notl ulthin the "Wrk (sered"
pr,l sions of Ihe Mi .A
I See Ictl 4 - /n- rlter ml.t .l. i rl t trho ,- . f / trtl i , rcrl,Ai, IlI1
('10. rt / )Ditoe, ( .riiu...n (o 1 80 N I R 420 11( 19f09
As sec 101 2 anti sec 103 3 are themselses "lllon -silgltror" sliue It iu
ulnnecessalr! It consider the effect on thi c o1 Respondent \ ,ocllatiln
attempt to dlsIsIos sec 101 and the .,Joint \.LIJiteIItII B I lr ls tI lltre to fi-ld
thi ( ast hd .iolated ec 101
803
I)ECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tory" clauses violative of Section 8(e) because they
have a secondary thrust directed at furthering general
union objectives and regulating labor practices of em-
ployers other than employers party to the clauses' 14
As the subcontracting provisions in issue are within
the general proscription of Section 8(e), we consider
whether they are privileged by the construction in-
dustry proviso to that section. The restrictions meet
the express requirements of the proviso because they
relate to jobsite work in the construction industry.
The General Counsel and Charging Party contend,
however, that they do not merit the proviso's protec-
tion under the rationale of Connell.
We have considered the import of Connell in sev-
eral cases 5 and have stated that under our view of
that decision the construction industry proviso to Sec-
tion 8(e) privileges subcontracting restrictions in the
context of a collective-bargaining relationship, and
possibly even without such a relationship, if the re-
strictions are aimed at avoiding the Denver Building
Trades problem.' 6 We conclude that the subcontract-
ing provisions in this case are within the context of a
collective-bargaining relationship and hence are
privileged by the proviso.'7 For many years Respon-
dents have been parties to complete collective-bar-
gaining agreements covering wages and conditions of
employment for employees represented by Respon-
dent Unions and employed by members of Respon-
dent Associations. The subcontracting provisions in
issue were part of the 1974 agreement between Re-
spondents. They represent Respondent Unions' legiti-
mate interest in restricting subcontracting in order to
protect employees within the contract unit and to
provide those employees continuity of work and sta-
ble jobsite relationships. 8 In these circumstances, we
think that the subcontracting provisions are entitled
14 See Carpenters Local No 944, United Brotherhood of Carpenters rnd
Joiners of Ameica. AFL-CIO, et al. (Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc.), 239
NLRB 241 (1978): Los Angeles Building and Construction Trades Couticil
(Donald Schriver, Inc.), 239 NLRB 264 (1978).
1" Woelke & Romero Framing, supra; Colorado Building Construction
Trades Council (Utilities Services Engineering, Inc.), 239 NLRB 253 (11978):;
Schriver, supra; International Union oj'f Operating Engineers, ocal No. 701,
AFL-CIO; Oregon-Columbia Chapter, The Associated General Contractor of
America, Inc. (Pacific Northwest Chapier of the Associated Builders & Cn-
tractors, Inc.), 239 NLRB 274 (1978); Carpenters Local Union No 15 United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL CIO, et al. (Metro
Lathing & Plastering, Inc., et al.), 240 NLRB 255 (19791.
16 N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building & Construction Trades Council. et ial. :141
U.S. 675 (1951).
iS The General Counsel does not argue the absence of a collective-bargain-
ing relationship in this case. He states in his brief: "Initially, it is not at issue
herein mat Respondent Unions and Coast had a collective bargaining rela-
tionship because as an employer-member of Respondent BIA, Coast was
part of a multi-employer bargaining unit and bound to all the terms and
conditions of the MLA, including the subcontracting provisions."
i1 We do not accept Charging Party's view that, within the collective-
bargaining relationship here, the subcontracting restrictions might not be
applied to Coast, which did not employ unit employees on the Whittier
project. The Board has not accepted the position, urged previously by he
General Counsel, that even in the context of a collective-bargaining relation-
ship subcontracting restrictions are unprivileged if they are operational when
unit employees are not present. See the cases cited in fn. 15, supra.
to proviso protection nothwithstanding the Connell
decision."
The General Counsel contends further, however,
that the subcontracting clauses are unprivileged be-
cause of section 306 of the bargaining contract which
he contends constitutes a means of "self-enforce-
ment" of the subcontracting clauses. In the Schriver
case a majority of the Board agreed with this conten-
tion, finding that section 306 sanctioned union eco-
nomic action to enforce the related subcontracting re-
strictions. We so find in this case.20 And we further
find that, by utilizing the grievance procedure against
Coast and thereby implementing the MLA, Respon-
dent Associations and Respondent Unions reentered
the contract which contravens Section 8(e) by reason
of self-enforcement provisions." Accordingly, Re-
spondents have violated Section 8(e) of the Act.
IV. [IE RENEI)Y
Having found that Respondents have engaged in
an unfair labor practice, we shall order them to cease
and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action to effectuate the purposes of the Act. In view
of the limited nature of the violation found we think
that a cease-and-desist and posting order, reaching
the named Respondents, is adequate to remedy the
unfair labor practices. Therefore, we deny the Gen-
eral Counsel's request that we extend the Order to all
parties signatory to the MLA and require Respon-
dents to rescind the fine imposed on Coast by the
Joint Adjustment Board.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in this proceeding, we make
the following:
CONCI.USIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Associations and their members are
employers engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Unions are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The 1974 MLA between Respondent Associ-
ations and Respondent Unions is an agreement con-
trary to Section 8(e) of the Act by reason of self-
enforcement provisions.
19 See Woelke & Romero, Schriver, and Metro Lathing, supra, cf. Utilities
Services Engineering, supra.
0 Chairman Fanning does not agree with this finding. For reasons set
forth in fn. 28 o the Schriver Decision. Chairman Fanning would find that
the clauses in issue in this case do not contravene Sec. 8(e) and would dismiss
the complaint.
1i See Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America,
Local Union No. 823, AFL-CIO (Independent Painting Contractors of New
Mexico), 161 NLRB 620 (1966); Dan McKinney Co., 137 NLRB 649 (1962);
Bricklayers and Stone Masons Union, Local No 2, Bricklayers, Masons, and
Plasterers' International Union of America. AFL CIO (Gunnar 1. Johnson &
Son. Inc.), 224 NLRB 1021 (1976).
804
LOS ANGEL.ES COU;NTY DISTRI('T COUNC'IL OF CARPENTERS
4. By reentering the 1974 MLA, Respondent Asso-
ciations and Respondent Unions have violated Sec-
tion 8(e) of the Act.
5. The above unfair labor practice is an unfair la-
bor practice affecting commerce and the free flow of
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that:
A. Associated General Contractors of California.
Inc., and Building Industry Association of California,
Inc., Los Angeles. California, their officers. agents.
and representatives shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Entering into, maintaining, giving effect to, or
enforcing the 1974 Master Labor Agreement with Los
Angeles County District Council of Carpenters.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO; Carpenters Local No. 1062,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL CIO; Carpenters Local No. 1506.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO: and Shinglers' Local No. 1125,
United Brotherhood of' Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, to the extent found unlawful by
reason of self-enforcement provisions.
(b) Entering into, maintaining, giving effect to. or
enforcing any like or related agreement to the the
extent that it contravenes Section 8(e) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Post at their business offices copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix ."22 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided b the Regional Director
for Region 21, after being duly signed by authorized
representatives of Respondent Associations, shall be
posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof:
and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are cutomarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall he taken hb Respondent Asso-
ciation to insure that said notices are not altered,. de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to all their members copies of said notice,
on fc.ms provided by the Regional Director tbr Re-
gion 21, signed by authorized representatives of Re-
spondent Associations. with instructions to their
members to post the notices at the members' places of
"22 In the event that this Order is enforced bs a Judgment f a UInted
States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading Piosted h Order ot
the National Labor Relalions Board'" shall read "Posted Pursuant Io Judg-
ment of the United States Court of ppeals Entorcing a Order ot he Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
business where notices to employees are customarily
posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent Associations have taken to
comply herewith.
B. Los Angeles County District Council of Car-
penters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join-
ers of America, AFL-CIO; Carpenters Local No.
1062, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, AFL-CIO:; Carpenters Local No. 1506,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America. AFL-CIO: and Shinglers' Local No. 1125,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America. AFL-CIO. Los Angeles. California. their
officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Fintering into. maintaining, gi\ving effect to, or
enforcing the 1974 Master Labor Agreement with As-
sociated General Contractors of California. Inc., and
Building Industry Association of California, Inc., to
the extent found unlawful by reason of self-enforce-
ment provisions.
(b) Entering into, maintaining, giving effect to, or
enforcing any like or related agreement to the extent
that it contravenes Section 8(e) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Post at their business offices and meeting halls
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
II ."L C'opies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 21, after being duly
signed b an authorized representative of each Re-
spondent Union, shall be posted by each immediately
upon receipt thereof; and be maintained by each for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent Unions to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered b any other mate-
rial.
(b) Notifl the Regional Director ftr Region 21, in
writing, within 20 da s from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent Unions have taken to comply
herewith.
APPEND)IX I
Nori(-E To EMPI.OYEES ANI) MEMBERS
POSIED BY ORDER ()f till
NATIONAL LABOR RE.LAIIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE \ IL NOT enter into. maintain. give effect
to. or enforce the 1974 Master Labor Agreement
with Los Angeles Count, District Council of
:' See In 22, supra
805
DECISIONS OF NAT'IONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL CIO; Carpenters
Local No. 1062; Local No. 1506; and Shinglers'
Local No. 1125, to the extent found unlawful by
the Board by reason of self-enf'orcement provi-
sions.
W. wi.l. NOI enter into, maintain, give effect
to, or enforce any like or related agreement to
the extent it contravenes Section 8(e) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
ASSO(IAII) GENERAI. C)N'RA('IORS ()1
CA.IFhORNIA, IN(C.
BUILDIN(G INDI)USIFRY ASS()(IAIION OF CAI.I-
FORNIA, IN('.
APPEINDIX II
Noi( I'( To MIMBFIRS
PoS' II) BY ORDEI)IR OF Il
NAII()NAI. LABOR RI.AII()NS BOARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
WI Wll. NI enter into, maintain, give efect
to, or enforce the 1974 Master Labor Agreement
with Associated General Contractors of Califor-
nia, Inc., and Building Industry Association of
California, Inc., to the extent found unlawful by
the Board by reason of self-enforcement provi-
sions.
WE vll.I. NO enter into, maintain, give effect
to, or enforce any like or related agreement to
the extent it contravenes Section 8(e) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
Los ANG(;EI.S COUN l1Y DISIRI('I COUNCI.
OF CARPENrLRS, UNIlED BRO()IIIlRIIOOD ()I
CARPENIERS AND JOINERS ()F AMERI(CA,
AFL CIO
CARPEN I ERS Lo('AI No. 1062, UNIIED)
BRO() IIIIRIOOI( ) ()F CARP'tN I ERS AND J()IN-
IRS ()O AMIRI( A, AFL. ('10
CARPIN I[RS .()(AI. No. 1506. UNI I EI)
IRS ()1 AMIRI('A, AFL (CIO
SIN(;I RS' L.()(A. No. 1125. UNl I Il)
BRO() I RilOO()) ()- CARPI'INIIRS AND JOIN-
ERS ()l AMI!RI( A, AFI. ('1O
806