Luke Construction Company, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 602 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Luke Construction Company, Inc. and Baton Rouge
Building and Construction Trades Council,
AFL-CIO and Allied Federation of Unions, Local
No. 101 , Party to the Contract . Case 15-CA-4901
June 14, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On January 30, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Samuel Ross issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding . Thereafter, the Charging Party and
General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting
briefs. Respondent filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
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, Luke Construction
Company, Inc., Houma , Louisiana , its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns , shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
SAMUEL Ross, Administrative Law Judge: This case was
tried before me in Houma, Louisiana, on November 6,
1973. The charge in this case was filed on July 12, 1973,
and a complaint based thereon issued on August 30, 1973,
against the above-named Company (herein called Respon-
dent) which alleges that the Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and
(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Respondent
filed an answer which denied the substantive allegations of
the complaint and the commission of unfair labor
practices.
Upon the entire record, and my observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor , and after due consideration
of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the
Respondent , I make the following:
211 NLRB No. 91
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
Respondent is a Louisiana corporation whose principal
office and place of business is located in Houma,
Louisiana, where it is engaged as a contractor in the
construction industry . During the past year , a representa-
tive period, the Respondent admittedly purchased materi-
als and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 which were
transported to it in Louisiana directly from places outside
the State of Louisiana . Based on the foregoing , I find that
the Respondent is engaged in commerce and in operations
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
It is undisputed and I find that Baton Rouge Building
and Construction Trades Council , AFL-CIO (herein called
Building Trades Council), and Allied Federation of
Unions , Local No. 101 (herein called Local 101), are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issue Presented for Determination
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by soliciting its
employees to execute "dual purpose" membership and
dues-checkoff authorization cards for Local 101, by
advancing and paying to Local 101 , before collecting it, the
initiation fee required from its employees for membership
therein, and by thereafter deducting from the wages of said
employees the initiation fees thus advanced and their
membership dues in Local 101. The testimony adduced at
the hearing is for the most part undisputed . The Respon-
dent admitted that it engaged in the conduct charged
herein as unfair labor practices , albeit without knowledge
of its illegality . The Respondent also presented uncontro-
verted testimony regarding steps which it voluntarily took
to remedy its conduct after it was apprised by the Board's
Regional Office of its illegality . Thus, there is presented
here primarily the question of the nature of the order
required to remedy the Respondent's admittedly unlawful
conduct . As to this issue , there is considerable disagree-
ment by the parties , the nature of which will be explicated
and considered infra.
B. The Conduct Upon Which the Complaint is
Based
The Respondent is a contractor in the construction
industry. Prior to the events upon which the instant
complaint is based, it had no history of collective
bargaining with any union, and its employees were not
LUKE CONSTRUCTION CO. 603
represented by any labor organization. On an undisclosed
date on or before May 1973,1 the Respondent entered into
a contract with Shell Oil Company, Pipeline Division
(Houston, Texas), to construct a pipeline for Shell at its St.
James, Louisiana, terminal . On May 1, before any
employees had been hired for or transferred to this job, the
Respondent entered into a collective-bargaining agreement
with Local 101 limited to the terms and conditions of
employment of the employees who would work for it at the
Shell jobsite at the St . James terminal . The said agreement
contained a union-security provision requiring employees
to become, members of Local 101 on or within 5 days after
the seventh day following the effective date of the contract
or the beginning of their employment . The said agreement
also contained a provision by which the Respondent
agreed to deduct from its employees' wages and to transmit
to Local 101 membership dues, initiation fees , and lawful
assessments "in accordance with the terms of a signed
voluntary authorization to do so." 2
On June 4, the Respondent commenced work on the
Shell Pipeline contract at St . James with five to seven
employees who had been transferred from its other jobs.
This staff was augmented by new hires and additional
transferees as work on the Shell contract progressed. When
the charge in this case was investigated by the Board's
Regional Office, the Respondent had about 37 employees
on this job, 17 to 20 of whom were new hires, and the rest
transferees from Respondent's other jobs. As of the date of
the hearing in this case, the Respondent had about 75
employees on this job, which is estimated for completion in
April 1974.
It is undisputed that all new hires for and transferees to
this job, before starting to work thereon, were required by
the Respondent to sign, and signed, cards which "request-
[ed] and accept[ed]" membership in Local 101, and which
authorized Respondent to deduct from their wages and pay
to Local 101 "the amounts provided in the applicable
agreement" with the Respondent . Signatures to these
membership applications, called "dual purpose" cards by
the General Counsel, were solicited at the time of hire or
transfer by Respondent's office manager , Albert J. Laper-
ous, pursuant to the instructions of Respondent's vice
president , Vernon Helms , Jr., and construction superin-
tendent, Jimmy Osburn . Helms admitted that, "as a person
was hired" or transferreds "they signed it [the card] or
didn't go to work." The Respondent thereafter deducted
from the wages of its employees at the Shell St. James
terminal pipeline job the monthly dues of $5 and the $50
initiation fee in installments.
On July 21, the Respondent sent to Local 101 a check in
excess of $2,000 for the June and July dues and the
initiation fees of all employees who worked at this jobsite.
The said check admittedly included sums which had not
yet been deducted from employees' paychecks "at that
time."
Mark Bishop , Jr., admittedly is a construction foreman
employed by the Respondent and its supervisor within the
I All dates hereinafter will refer to 1973 unless otherwise noted.
2 G. C. Exh. 2, p. 6.
The contract does not specify the amounts which were to be deducted.
However , the initiation fee was $50 and the monthly dues were $5.
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. It is undisputed that
Bishop also served as the job steward of Local 101 at
Respondent's Shell job at St. James from about June 7
until about August 1.
C. Analysis of the Respondent's Conduct
As previously noted, the Respondent is a contractor in
the building and construction industry. Insofar as the
record discloses, Local 101 is a labor organization in which
building and construction employees are members. Ac-
cordingly, under Section 8(f) of the Act, the Respondent is
and was qualified to enter into a lawful prehire agreement
with Local 101, and to provide in that agreement as a
condition of employment that its employees at the Shell
jobsite would be required to become and remain members
of Local 101 after the seventh day following the beginning
of such employment or the effective date of the agreement,
whichever came later.3 I note in this regard that there is no
allegation in the complaint which charges that the
Respondent rendered unlawful assistance to Local 101,
either by entering into the May 1 prehire agreement with it,
or by the inclusion in the said prehire agreement of the
previously described union-security clause.
However, the validity of the said prehire contract
between Respondent and Local 101 did not justify the
Respondent's subsequent conduct. Under Section 10(f) of
the Act, employees in the building and construction
industry cannot lawfully be required as a condition of
employment to join a labor organization until after 7 days
following the commencement of such employment. The
Respondent's prehire contract with Local 101 provided
that employees hired for the Shell job had 12 days after
hire before they were required to join that Union.
Nevertheless, the Respondent admittedly required all
applicants for employment at and transferees to the Shell
job at St. James to sign applications for membership in
Local 101 before the commencement of their employment,
and thus deprived said employees of the grace period
allowed them by both the Act and the prehire contract.
The Respondent thereby clearly rendered unlawful assist-
ance and support to Local 101 and engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of
the Act 4
Notwithstanding the validity of the union-security
provision of the contract between Respondent and Local
101 which required union membership after 12 days of
employment at the Shell job, the Respondent's employees
had a right under the Act to refrain from executing dues
checkoff authorizations for Local 101.5 However, as found
above, they were required, as a condition of employment at
the job, to sign a dual purpose card, which was not only an
application for union membership, but also an authoriza-
tion to deduct union dues and assessments from their pay,
and to transmit it to Local 101. By thus requiring its
employees as a condition of employment to execute the
said dual purpose cards which, inter alia, authorized the
checkoff from their pay of union dues and assessments, the
3 Zidell Explorations, Inc., 175 NLRB 887, 888.
4 Parker Brothers and Company, Inc., 101 NLRB 872, 874.
5 American Screw Company, 122 NLRB 485, 489.
604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent rendered further assistance and support to
Local 101, and further violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of
the Act.6
It also is quite obvious, as the Respondent readily
concedes, that Respondent further rendered unlawful
assistance and support by advancing and paying to Local
101 the initiation fees and union dues of its Shell job
employees before actually deducting the said sums from
the employees' paychecks, and by permitting Construction
Foreman Mark Bishop, Jr., an admitted supervisor, to
serve as Local 101's fob steward at the Shell job.
D. The Steps Taken to Remedy the Unlawful
Conduct
As previously noted, the charge against the Respondent
in the instant case was filed with the Board by the Building
Trades Council on July 12.7 In the course of the
investigation of that charge, Respondent's vice president,
Helms , was interviewed on or about August 2 by an agent
of the Board's Regional Office. Following that interview,
and advice from the Regional Office that its conduct had
violated the Act, the Respondent refunded to all its
employees the initiation fees which it previously had
deducted from their pay pursuant to the dual purpose
cards they had executed, and it also ceased deducting
Local 101 dues from employees' pay. In addition, on an
undisclosed date in August, Construction Foreman Mark
Bishop, Jr., ceased serving as Local 101 job steward and
the Union subsequently designated Anthony Sigur, a field
clerk employed by the Respondent at the Shell job, to be
its job steward. Thereafter, during the month of October,
Sigur solicited and obtained the signatures of all 51 of
Respondent's employees at the Shell job to new member-
ship cards and checkoff authorizations.8 The solicitation of
these cards admittedly was engaged in by Sigur at the Shell
project on company time with the knowledge and consent
of the Respondent. According to Sigur's uncontroverted
and credited testimony, he "explained" to all the employ-
ees before they signed, that the cards were applications
"for membership in Local 101," "that they would be
assessed a $50 initiation fee once and then $5 a month
thereafter as dues and that the [initiation] fee would be
collected in probably two to three installments on (sic)
their paychecks." Sigur admittedly also told the employees
before they signed that there was "a contract with the
union" and that "this was ... a union shop job."
E. Contentions as to Remedy and Conclusion
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent's
unfair labor practices call for "the standard remedy" of
requiring it to cease recognizing Local 101, and to cease
giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement with
Local 101, "until such time as Local 101 has been certified
by the Board" as the representative of the Respondent's
employees at the Shell project. In support of this
contention, the General Counsel argues that the steps
taken by the Respondent after the Board's investigation of
6 American Screw Company, supra; International Union of District 50,
United Mine Workers of America (Ruberoid Company), 173 NLRB 87
7 The record does not disclose the interest , if any , of the Building Trades
the charge in this case not only do not remedy its prior
unlawful conduct, but also constitute a continuation of its
"illegal activity [and] enunciates the need for an election."
In this regard, the General Counsel urges that the
Respondent rendered continued unlawful assistance and
support to Local 101 because:
(1) Sigur, the Respondent's field clerk, who replaced
Foreman Bishop as the Union's job steward, is not "a
member of the appropriate unit"; (2) Sigur was "allowed to
solicit membership applications and checkoff authoriza-
tions" for Local 101 on company time for which he was
"being paid by the Respondent"; (3) the membership
applications and the checkoff authorizations which Sigur
solicited in October "are identical to the original [dual
purpose] cards"; and (4) "employees have not been given
an opportunity to decide whether or not they wish to pay
dues through a means other than checkoff."9 I find no
merit in the General Counsel's contention that the
Respondent's conduct after the investigation of the charge
herein constituted a continuation of unlawful assistance to
Local 101, and none in his proposed order to remedy the
unfair labor practices found herein.
I know of no requirement that job stewards must be
employees in the unit in which they serve as stewards, and
the General Counsel cites no authority for the proposition
that the utilization of a nonunit employee as job steward
constitutes unlawful assistance by the steward's employer.
To the contrary, I take official notice that in the
construction industry job stewards frequently act as the
Union's agent , not only in respect to the employees of their
own employer, but also in respect to employees in the same
craft employed by other employers. Sigur, unlike Bishop
who proceeded him as job steward, was not a supervisor of
the Respondent. I therefore find that his appointment by
Local 101 to the position of job steward did not constitute
illegal assistance or support of that Union by Respondent.
Contrary to the General Counsel's contention, the
membership applications and checkoff authorizations to
which Sigur solicited signatures are not "identical" to the
"dual purpose" cards whose use were found above to
constitute unlawful assistance and support of Local 101.
The new membership applications and checkoff authoriza-
tions are physically located on a single piece of paper or
card (see Union Exh. 1), but they appear on separate parts
of the paper or card, they are severable from each other by
a perforation, and they require separate signatures for the
membership application and the checkoff authorization.
The General Counsel has adduced no testimony (and he
had the burden of proof) that employees were required to
sign both as a condition of employment by Respondent at
the Shell job. I therefore find that the General Counsel has
failed to prove by the required preponderance of the
testimony that the use of the new form of membership
application and checkoff authorization deprived employees
of their right to refrain from paying union dues and
assessments by means other than checkoff.
This leaves for consideration the General Counsel's final
contention that the Respondent rendered additional
Council in the representation of Respondent 's employees at the Shell job
8 See Union Exh 1
9 G.C. br , pp. 2-3
LUKE CONSTRUCTION CO.
assistance and support to Local 101 because it "allowed
[Sigur] to solicit" membership applications and checkoff
authorizations "for Local 101 on company time." I likewise
regard this contention as without merit. As found above,
the prehire collective-bargaining agreement which the
Respondent and Local 101 entered into in May 1973 is
specifically permitted by Section 8(f) of the Act. The said
agreement contained a valid union-security provision
authorized by Section 8(f) which required membership in
Local 101 after 12 days of employment at the job. There is
no evidence that the Building Trades Council or any other
union was attempting to organize the employees covered
by the said collective-bargaining contract at the time the
said agreement was executed or at anytime thereafter.
Under these circumstances, and especially in the light of
the lawful prehire contract which contained a valid union-
security provision, I can perceive no rational basis for
equating the cooperation of the Respondent with Local 101
in permitting the solicitation of new union membership
applications and checkoff authorizations with the rendition
of unlawful assistance and support.
Moreover, inasmuch as the Respondent committed no
unfair labor practices either by its prehire recognition of
Local 101 for the Shell job employees, or by entering into
the collective-bargaining contract with Local 101, and
since under Section 8(f) of the Act, such a prehire contract
is not a bar to a petition filed pursuant to Section 9(c) or
9(e) of the Act, there is no valid basis or justification for
the order proposed by the General Counsel which would
require Respondent to cease recognizing Local 101 or
giving effect to the contract with it until such time as Local
101 has been certified by the Board as the representative of
Respondent's Shell job employees.10
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent will be required to reimburse those
employees at its Shell job at St. James, Louisiana, who,
after the execution of the prehire contract by the
Respondent and Local 101, were required to become
members of Local 101 before the expiration of 12 days of
employment at the job, for the monies paid by the said
employees to Local 101, or that were deducted from their
605
pay for Local 101, for initiation fees, dues, and/or
assessments, during the said first 12-day period of their
employment at the said job, and which have not heretofore
been refunded to them. However, employees who have
worked on the project for more than 12 days shall only be
reimbursed for union dues which were deducted for the
first 12 days of their employment, and which have not
heretofore been refunded to them. Interest on such monies
at 6 percent per annum is to be paid in accordance with the
Board's decisions in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716. Excluded from this remedial provision are
those employees who already were members of Local 101
when hired by the Respondent.
To facilitate the computation of the monies which may
be due to employees by the terms of this Order, I will also
recommend that the Respondent preserve and, upon
request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze and
determine the said amounts.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Baton Rouge Building and Construction Trades
Council, AFL-CIO, and Allied Federation of Unions,
Local No. 101, are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Luke Construction Company, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce and in operations affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
3. By directing and requiring employees, as a condition
of employment, to join Allied Federation of Unions, Local
No. 101, prior to the time permitted by Section 8(f) of the
Act and by the collective-bargaining agreement between
Respondent Luke Construction Company, Inc., and Allied
Federation of Unions, Local No. 101, by directing and
requiring employees to sign checkoff authorizations for
union fees and dues, by deducting such fees and dues from
employees' wages prior to the 13th day following the
beginning of the employees' employment, by advancing
and paying to the said Union the initiation fees and union
dues for its employees before actually collecting the said
monies from its employees, and by permitting a supervisor
to serve as the job steward of Allied Federation of Unions,
Local No. 101, the Respondent has contributed financial
and other support to the said Union and thereby has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
4. By the foregoing conduct, the Respondent also has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
10 Zidell Explorations, Inc., 175 NLRB 887.
606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
I hereby issue the following recommended:
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
' Decision , what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
ORDER"
Respondent , Luke Construction Company, Inc., Houma,
Louisiana , its officers , agents, successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assisting and encouraging membership in Allied
Federation of Unions, Local No. 101, or any other labor
organization , by directing or requiring employees, as a
condition of employment , to join the labor organization
prior to the time permitted by Section 8(f) of the Act; by
directing and requiring employees to sign checkoff authori-
zations for union fees and dues ; by deducting such fees
and dues prior to the time permitted by Section 8(f) of the
Act or by a valid collective-bargaining agreement entered
into pursuant to Section 8(f) of the Act, whichever is later;
by advancing and paying to the labor organization union
fees and dues prior to collecting the same from employees;
and/or by permitting any supervisor as defined in Section
2(11) of the Act to serve as a job steward for the labor
organization.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to
join or assist Allied Federation of Unions, Local No. 101,
or any other labor organization to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from engaging in such activities, except to the
extent permitted by Section 8(aX3) and Section 8(f) of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Reimburse its employees for monies illegally exacted
from them in the manner and to the extent set forth in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports , and all other records
necessary or useful in analyzing the amounts, if any, due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its office in Houma , Louisiana , and at its
project at the Shell plant in St . James , Louisiana, copies of
the notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 15,
after being duly signed by Respondent , shall be posted by
it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall
11 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.
12 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
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial at which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence , an Administrative Law Judge of the
National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act, and has
ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out
the order of the Board.
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form , join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through a representa-
tive of their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any and all these things.
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these
rights . More specifically,
WE WILL NOT assist or encourage membership in
Allied Federation of Unions, Local No. 101, or any
other labor organization, by requiring our employees,
as a condition of employment, to join the labor
organization before the time they may be required to
do so by virtue of an agreement permitted by Section
8(f) of the Act , and WE WILL NOT require our
employees, as a condition of employment , to sign
checkoff authorizations for union fees and dues.
WE WILL NOT deduct union fees and dues prior to
the time permitted by Section 8(f) of the Act, and also
WE WILL NOT advance initiation fees and dues to any
labor organization before collecting the same from our
employees.
WE WILL reimburse our employees , to the extent we
have not already done so, for the monies which we
unlawfully exacted them by requiring them to join
Allied Federation of Unions, Local No. 101, before the
time permitted by Section 8(f) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT allow any supervisor to act as a job
steward for any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights to self-organization, to form labor
organizations , to join or assist Allied Federation of
Unions, Local No . 101, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
LUKE CONSTRUCTION CO. 607
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
other mutual aid or protection , and to refrain from any anyone.
or all such activities , except to the extent permitted by This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
Sections 8(a)(3) and 8 (f) of the Act. from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
LUKE CONSTRUCTION Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
COMPANY, INC. its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Plaza
(Employer) Tower, Suite 2700, 1001 Howard Avenue, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70113, Telephone 504-527-6361.
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)