Michael J. Vorkapic, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 19, 2002

337 N.L.R.B. 798 (N.L.R.B. 2002)

798 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Michael J. Vorkapic, Inc.; Michael J. Vorkapic, a sole
proprietor, d/b/a Michael J. Vorkapic, Inc., and
J–A–M Masonry, Inc., alter egos and/or a Single
Integrated Enterprise and Illinois District Coun­
cil No. 1 of the International Union of Bricklay­
ers and Allied Craftworkers, AFL–CIO and
Production Workers Union of Chicago and Vi­
cinity, Local 707, an affiliate of the National
Production Workers Union, Party in Interest.
Case 13–CA–39163
July 19, 2002
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN HURTGEN AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND BARTLETT
This case is before the Board on the General Counsel’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. The General Counsel
alleges that all three Respondents failed to timely answer
the complaint.1 The Respondents admit that they failed
to file timely answers, but assert good cause for the fail­
ure to do so. The issue before the Board, therefore, is
whether the reasons proffered by the Respondents for the
failure to file timely answers constitute good cause. We
find, for the reasons set forth below, that good cause has
not been shown, and we grant the General Counsel’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations provide that the allegations in the complaint
shall be deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within
14 days from service of the complaint, unless good cause
is shown. In addition, the complaint affirmatively states
that unless an answer is filed within 14 days of service,
all the allegations in the complaint will be considered
admitted. The complaint was served on the three Re-
1 The chronology of events preceding this Decision and Order are as
follows: A charge and amended charge were filed by Illinois District
Council No. 1 of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied
Craftworkers, AFL–CIO (District Council), on February 20, 2001, and
March 8, 2001, respectively. The Regional Director for Region 13 of
the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on August 24,
2001, against the Respondents alleging that they had violated Sec.
8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. Although
properly served copies of the charge, amended charge, and complaint,
the Respondents failed to file timely answers. On October 31, 2001, the
General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Board.
On November 2, 2001, the Board issued an order transferring the pro­
ceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion
should not be granted. On November 14, 2001, the District Council
filed a brief in support of the General Counsel’s motion. On November
16, 2001, the Respondents filed a response to the Notice to Show Cause
opposing the General Counsel’s motion.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in
this proceeding to a three-member panel.
spondents on August 24, 2001, and therefore their an­
swers were due no later than September 7, 2001.2 Fur­
ther, the undisputed allegations in the Motion for Sum­
mary Judgment disclose that the Region, by letter dated
October 19, notified the Respondents that they had failed
to file answers within the time prescribed by the Board’s
Rule. The letter further advised the Respondents that,
unless an answer was received by October 26, a Motion
for Summary Judgment would be filed.
In his Motion for Summary Judgment, the Ge neral
Counsel asserts that one Respondent (J-A-M Masonry,
Inc.) filed an answer 4 days late on October 30, and that
the other two Respondents (Michael J. Vorkapic, Inc.;
Michael J. Vorkapic, a sole proprietor, d/b/a Michael J.
Vorkapic, Inc.) did not file any answers whatsoever. In
the absence of a showing of good cause for the failure to
file timely answers, the General Counsel argues that his
Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted.
In the response to the Notice to Show Cause, all three
Respondents claim that they filed answers on October 30.
In addition, the Respondents assert that until “just a couple
of weeks” before the October 26 deadline, the Region re­
tained their records, thus preventing them from properly
and adequately answering the complaint. Finally, the Re­
spondents contend that Michael J. Vorkapic’s answer
could not be finalized because he was incapacitated from
October 26 through 30 and hospitalized on October 29.
Therefore, the Respondents argue that the General Coun­
sel’s motion should be denied.
For the purposes of our decision, we will accept as true
the assertion in the response to the Notice to Show Cause
that each Respondent filed an answer on October 30, 4
days after the extended deadline of October 26.3 For the
reasons set forth below, we find that the Respondents
have failed to establish good cause for the failure to file
timely answers.
The Respondents argue that employer documents re­
tained by the Region prevented them from filing timely
answers to the complaint. The Respondents admit, how-
ever, that the documents in the Region’s possession were
released at least “a couple of weeks” before the October
26 deadline. The Respondents have failed to exp lain
why they could not have prepared and filed answers dur­
ing that “couple of weeks” period. Further, the Respon­
dents failed to contact the Regional Office to request an
extension of the October 26 deadline on the ground that
additional time was needed to review the recently re-
leased documents.4 Thus, we reject the Respondents’
2 All dates refer to 2001 unless otherwise indicated.
3 No party has submitted copies of any answers for the record.
4 The Board has stated that a party’s “failure to promptly request an
extension of time to file an answer is a factor demonstrating lack of
337 NLRB No. 126
MICHAEL J. VORKAPIC, INC. 799
argument that the Region’s retention of documents con­
stitutes good cause for the failure to file a timely answer.
The Respondents also argue that Michael J. Vorkapic’s
incapacitation and illness prevented the finalizing of his
answer to the complaint. We find that these reasons do
not constitute good cause.5 The Respondents fail to ex-
plain how Vorkapic’s incapacitation and hospitalization,
which occurred on October 26 and thereafter, prevented
them from completing an answer or from requesting that
the filing deadline be extended. The Respondents make
no assertion that they attempted to contact the Regional
Office any time on or prior to the October 26 deadline to
request an extension of time to file an answer.
Thus, in the absence of good cause being shown for
the failure to file a timely answer, we grant the Ge neral
Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, Michael J. Vorkapic, Inc.
(Vorkapic, Inc.), with an office and place of business in
Geneva, Illinois (Vorkapic’s facility), has been engaged
in the business of bricklaying in the construction indus­
try. During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the
complaint, Vorkapic, Inc., in conducting its business
operations, purchased and received at its facility and
worksites in the State of Illinois goods valued in excess
of $50,000 from other enterprises located within the
State of Illinois, each of which other enterprises had re­
ceived these goods directly from points outside the State
of Illinois. We find that Vorkapic, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Since about late 1999, Michael J. Vorkapic, a sole
proprietorship (MJV), has been doing business as Mi­
chael J. Vorkapic, Inc. During the 12 months preceding
the issuance of the complaint, MJV, in conducting its
business operations described above, purchased and re­
ceived at its worksites goods valued in excess of $50,000
good cause.” Dong-A Daily North America, 332 NLRB 15, 16 (2000)
(citing Day & Zimmerman Services, 325 NLRB 1046, 1047 (1998)).
5 See Day & Zimmerman, supra, 325 NLRB 1046, 1047 (stating that
the critical, near-fatal illness and 4-month hosp italization of father of
respondent’s consultant, and consultant’s subsequent erratic schedule,
do not constitute good cause for failure to file a timely answer to com­
plaints); U.S. Telefactors Corp., 293 NLRB 567 (1989) (attorney’s
illness and unusually heavy workload do not const itute good cause);
Ancorp National Service, 202 NLRB 513, 514 (1973), enfd. mem. 502
F.2d 1159 (1st Cir. 1973) (absence of respondent’s labor relations offi­
cial due to illness does not constitute good cause); and Carmody, Inc.,
327 NLRB 1230 (1999) (illness and death of company officer’s grand-
parents do not constitute good cause where company continued to
function in that time period).
from other enterprises located within the State of Illinois,
each of which other enterprises had received these goods
directly from points outside the State of Illinois. We find
that MJV is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
At all material times, J-A-M Masonry, Inc. (J-A-M), a
corporation, with an office and place of business in
Aurora (J-A-M’s facility), has been engaged in the busi­
ness of bricklaying in the construction industry. Based
on its operations since about February 1, at which time J-
A-M commenced its operations, J-A-M, in conducting its
business operations described above, will annually pur­
chase and receive at its worksites goods valued in excess
of $50,000 from other enterprises located within the
State of Illinois, each of which other enterprises had re­
ceived these goods directly from points outside the State
of Illinois. We find that J-A-M is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
At all material times, Vorkapic, Inc., MJV, and J-A-M
have been affiliated business enterprises with common
officers, ownership, directors, management, and supervi­
sion; have administered a commo n labor policy; have
shared common premises and facilities; have provided
services for and made sales to each other; have inter-
changed personnel with each other; and have held them-
selves out to the public as a single-integrated business
enterprise. Based on its operations described above, we
find that Vorkapic, Inc., MJV and J-A-M (collectively
the Respondent) constitute a single-integrated business
enterprise and a single employer within the meaning of
the Act.
About late 1999, on a date unknown to the Ge neral
Counsel but particularly within the knowledge of the
Respondent, Vorkapic, Inc., was involuntarily dissolved
by the State of Illinois. Since about late 1999, on a date
unknown to the General Counsel but within the knowl­
edge of the Respondent, the Respondent established MJV
as a disguised continuation of Vorkapic, Inc. Based on
the conduct described above, we find that MJV and
Vorkapic, Inc., are, and have been at all material times,
alter egos within the meaning of the Act.
About February 1, the Respondent established J-A-M as
a disguised continuation of Vorkapic, Inc. and/or MJV.
Based on the conduct described above, we find that J-A-
M, MJV, and Vorkapic, Inc. are, and have been at all ma­
terial times, alter egos within the meaning of the Act.
At all material times, District Council has been a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act. At all material times, Production Workers Union of
Chicago and Vicinity, Local 707, an affiliate of the Na­
tional Production Workers Union (Local 707), has been a
800 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, the following individuals held the
positions set forth opposite their respective names and
have been supervisors of the Respondent within the mean­
ing of Section 2(11) of the Act and/or agents of the Re­
spondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:
Michael J. Vorkapic President, Owner and
Sole Proprietor, Michael
J. Vorkapic, Inc.; Esti­
mator, J-A-M Masonry,
Inc.
Efrain Perea President, J-A-M Ma­
sonry, Inc.
James R. Sturgeon Labor Consultant, Mi­
chael Vorkapic, Inc.;
Labor Consultant, J-A-M
Masonry, Inc.
At all material times, Anthony Monaco held the position
of Local 707’s president, and has been an agent of Local
707 within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
The following employees of Vorkapic, Inc. (the unit),
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
[A]ll Bricklayers, Stone Masons and Apprentices em­
ployed by the Employer for work performed within the
Counties of Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Kane,
Kendall, McHenry, Lake and Will, Illinois, but exclud­
ing all professional employees, managerial employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
About May 15, 1995, Vorkapic, Inc. and about May
31, 2000, Vorkapic, Inc. and/or MJV entered into a
memorandum of understanding whereby it agreed to be
bound by the terms of the collective-bargaining agree­
ment between the District Council and Mason Contrac­
tors Association of Greater Chicago, Builders Associa­
tion of Greater Chicago, Fox Valley Mason Contractors
Association, Lake County Contractors Association,
South DuPage Mason Contractors Association, Fox Va l-
ley General Contractors Association and Contractors
Association of Will and Grundy Counties effective June
1, 2000, and agreed to be bound by such future agree­
ments unless timely notice was given.
The Respondent, an employer engaged in the building
and construction industry, granted recognition to the Dis­
trict Council as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre­
sentative of the unit without regard to whether the major­
ity status of the District Council had ever been estab­
lished under the provisions of Section 9(a) of the Act.
Such recognition has been embodied in successive col­
lective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which
is effective for the period June 1, 2000, to May 31, 2004.
For the period from May 15, 1995, to May 31, 2004,
based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the District Council has
been the limited exclusive collective-bargaining repre­
sentative of the unit.
About mid-December, 2000, Vorkapic, Inc. and/or
MJV, by Michael J. Vorkapic, rendered assistance and
support to Local 707 by soliciting employees to sign Lo­
cal 707 authorization cards and threatening employees
with loss of employment or termination if they did not
join Local 707. About January, Vorkapic, Inc. and/or
MJV, by Michael J. Vorkapic, rendered assistance and
support to Local 707 by soliciting employees to with-
draw from the District Council and join Local 707.
About January, Vorkapic, Inc. and/or MJV, by Michael
J. Vorkapic, at Respondent’s job site rendered assistance
and support to Local 707 by soliciting employees to join
Local 707. About January, Vorkapic, Inc. and/or MJV,
by Michael J. Vorkapic, at Vorkapic’s facility rendered
assistance and support to Local 707 by soliciting em­
ployees to withdraw from the District Council and join
Local 707. About February 7, J-A-M, by Efrain Perea,
rendered assistance and support to Local 707 by granting
it recognition as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep­
resentative of the following unit of employees of J-A-M
(the J-A-M unit) at a time when Respondent was obli­
gated to recognize and bargain with the District Council,
as the District Council is the exclusive collective-
bargaining agent of the unit:
All construction workers employed by J-A-M.
About March 1, J-A-M, by Efrain Perea, rendered as­
sistance and support to Local 707 by entering into a col­
lective-bargaining agreement providing for, inter alia, the
payment of dues, and health and welfare benefit fund
contributions on behalf of the employees in the J-A-M
unit, at a time when Respondent was obligated to recog­
nize and bargain with the District Council, as the District
Council is the exclusive collective-bargaining agent of
the unit. J-A-M engaged in the conduct described above
even though Local 707 did not represent an uncoerced
majority of the J-A-M unit.
About January, Vorkapic, Inc. and/or MJV, by Mi­
chael J. Vorkapic, instructed employees to withdraw
from the District Council and accept Local 707 as their
recognized collective-bargaining agent if they wished to
continue their employment. About January to early Feb­
ruary, by conduct described above, Vorkapic, Inc. and/or
MJV caused the termination of its employees James
MICHAEL J. VORKAPIC, INC. 801
O’Grady, Thomas Delaney, and Steven Novelli. The
Respondent engaged in the conduct described above be-
cause the named employees of the Respondent refused to
join Local 707 and refrained from engaging in protected
concerted activities, and to discourage employees from
refraining from these activities. The collective-bar-
gaining agreement entered into about March between the
Respondent and Local 707 contains the following condi­
tions of employment:
It shall be a condition of continued employment that all
employees of the Employer covered by this Agreement
who are members of the Union in good standing on the
date on which this Agreement is signed shall, on either
the 8th or the 31st day (whichever is permissible under
law to the benefit of the Union) following the date on
which this agreement is signed, become and remain
members in good standing in the Union. It shall also be
a condition of continued employment that all employ­
ees covered by this Agreement, hired after the date on
which this Agreement is signed shall, on either the 8th
or the 31st day (whichever is permissible under law to
the benefit of the Union) following the beginning of
such employment, become and remain members in
good standing in the Union.
By engaging in the conduct described above, J-A-M has
encouraged its employees to join Local 707.
About February 24, the District Council, by letter, re-
quested that MJV and/or Vorkapic, Inc. furnish the Dis­
trict Council with the information contained in the letter.
The information requested by the District Council is nec­
essary for, and relevant to, the District Council’s per­
formance of its duties as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit. Since about Febru­
ary 24, MJV and/or Vorkapic, Inc., has failed and re-
fused to furnish the Union with the information requested
by it as described above.
Since about February 1, Respondent has withdrawn its
recognition of the District Council as the exclusive collec­
tive-bargaining representative of the Respondent’s em­
ployees in the unit. Since around February 1, the Respon­
dent has failed and refused to adhere to the terms and con­
ditions of the Memorandum of Understanding described
above, and has made unilateral changes to the terms and
conditions of employment, including, but not limited to,
changing the benefit fund contributions and wages paid to
unit employees. The subjects set forth above relate to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ­
ment of the unit and are mandatory subjects for the pur­
poses of collective bargaining. The Respondent engaged
in the conduct described above without the District Coun­
cil’s consent. Based on this conduct, commencing about
February 1, and continuing to date, the Respondent has
refused to abide by and has repudiated the collective-
bargaining agreement described above.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the acts and conduct described above, the Respon­
dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employ­
ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, has rendered assistance and support to a labor
organization, has discriminated against employees in
regard to the terms or conditions of employment of its
employees because they engaged in protected concerted
activities, and has failed and refused to bargain collec­
tively and in good faith with the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act. These unfair
labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer­
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order them to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Specifically, having found that the Respondent ren­
dered unlawful assistance and support to Local 707, we
shall order the Respondent to cease and desist from such
unlawful activity. We shall order the Respondent to
withdraw recognition from Local 707 as the representa­
tive of the J-A-M unit, and to cease giving effect to the
collective-bargaining agreement it entered into with Lo­
cal 707 about March 1, 2001. We shall also order the
Respondent to reimburse unit employees for all dues and
fees paid by employees to Local 707, with interest as
prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987).
Having found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order the Respondent
to recognize the District Council as the exclusive repre­
sentative of its unit employees, and to abide by and give
full force and effect to its collective-bargaining agree­
ment with the District Council. We shall also order the
Respondent to cease and desist from unilaterally chang­
ing the terms and conditions of employment as contained
in the collective-bargaining agreement with the District
Council and, upon request, to bargain collectively and in
good faith with the District Council as the employees’
exclusive representative.
Further, having found that the Respondent has failed
and refused since February 1, to apply the terms and
conditions of the collective-bargaining agreement with
the District Council, the Respondent will be required to
make whole the unit employees for any loss of earnings
802 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and other benefits they may have suffered as a result of
the Respondent’s failure to comply with the agreement
since February 1, in the manner set forth in Ogle Protec­
tion Service, 183 NLRB 682, 683 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d
502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest as prescribed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, supra. In the event that the
agreement provides for contributions to pension and
benefit funds, we shall order the Respondent to make all
contractually-required contributions to these funds that
they have failed to make since February 1, including any
additional amounts due to the funds on behalf of the unit
employees in accordance with Merryweather Optical
Co., 240 NLRB 1213 (1979). Further, the Respondent
shall reimburse unit employees for any expenses ensuing
from its failure to make the required contributions as set
forth in Kraft Plumbing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891 fn. 2
(1980), enfd. 661 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981), such amounts
to be computed in the manner set forth in Ogle Protec­
tion Service, supra, with interest as prescribed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, supra.6
Having found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging employees
James O’Grady, Thomas Delaney, and Steven Novelli,
we shall order the Respondent to offer the discriminatees
full reinstatement to their former jobs, or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed, and to make them whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the discrimination against them. Backpay shall
be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co.,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as prescribed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, supra. The Respondent shall
also be required to expunge from its files any and all
references to the unlawful discharges, and to notify the
discriminatees in writing that this has been done.
In addition, having found that the Respondent, since
about February 24, has failed to provide information to
the District Council that is relevant and necessary to its
role as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit
employees, we shall order the Respondent to furnish the
Union the information requested.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Michael J. Vorkapic, Inc.; Michael J.
Vorkapic, a sole proprietor, d/b/a Michael J. Vorkapic,
6 To the extent that an employee has made personal contributions to
a fund that are accepted by the fund in lieu of the employer’s delin­
quent contributions during the period of the delinquency, the Respon­
dent will reimburse the employee, but the amount of such reimburse­
ment will constitute a setoff to the amount that the Respondent other-
wise owes the fund.
Inc.; and J-A-M Masonry, Inc., Alter Egos and/or a Sin­
gle Integrated Enterprise, Geneva and Aurora, Illinois, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Rendering unlawful assistance and support to Lo­
cal 707 by soliciting employees to sign Local 707 au­
thorization cards and threatening to discharge employees
because they refused to join Local 707.
(b) Rendering unlawful assistance and support to Lo­
cal 707 by soliciting employees to withdraw from the
District Council and join Local 707.
(c) Granting Local 707 recognition as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the J-A-M unit (all construc­
tion workers employed by J-A-M) until Local 707 has
demonstrated its majority status pursuant to a Board-
conducted election.
(d) Entering into and giving effect to a collective-
bargaining agreement with Local 707 at a time when the
Respondent is obligated to recognize and bargain with
the District Council.
(e) Instructing employees to withdraw from the Dis­
trict Council and accept Local 707 as their collective-
bargaining agent if they wished to continue their em­
ployment.
(f) Discharging employees because they refused to
join Local 707 and refrained from engaging in protected
concerted activities, and to discourage other employees
from engaging in protected concerted activities.
(g) Encouraging employees to join Local 707 by en­
tering into a collective-bargaining agreement containing
a clause requiring employees, as a condition of continued
employment, to become and remain members in good
standing of Local 707.
(h) Failing and refusing to provide information re-
quested by the District Council on February 24 which is
necessary for, and relevant to, the District Council’s per­
formance of its function as the exclusive representative
of the unit.
(i) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in
good faith with the District Council.
(j) Withdrawing recognition from the District Council
as exclusive bargaining representative of the unit.
(k) Failing and refusing since February 1, to apply the
terms and conditions of the collective-bargaining agree­
ment entered into with the District Council to the follow­
ing unit employees:
[A]ll Bricklayers, Stone Masons and Apprentices em­
ployed by the Respondent for work performed within
the Counties of Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Kane,
Kendall, McHenry, Lake and Will, Illinois, but exclud-
MICHAEL J. VORKAPIC, INC. 803
ing all professional employees, managerial employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(l) Unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of
employment as contained in the collective-bargaining
agreement entered into with the District Council.
(m) Refusing to abide by and repudiating the collec­
tive-bargaining agreement entered into with the District
Council.
(n) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
James O’Grady, Thomas Delaney, and Steven Novelli
full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make James O’Grady, Thomas Delaney, and Ste­
ven Novelli whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits resulting from their unlawful discharges, in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, re-
move from its files any reference to the unlawful dis­
charges of James O’Grady, Thomas Delaney and Steven
Novelli, and within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writ­
ing that this has been done and that their unlawful dis­
charges will not be used against them in any way.
(d) Make whole all unit employees for any loss of
earnings and other benefits resulting from the Respon­
dent’s refusal to comply with the terms of the collective-
bargaining agreement with the District Council, in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(e) Make all fund payments required by the collective-
bargaining agreement with the District Council that have
not been made since February 1, 2001, and reimburse
unit employees for any expenses ensuing from its failure
to make the required payments, in the manner set forth in
the remedy section of this decision.
(f) Furnish the District Council the information re-
quested in its letter dated February 24.
(g) On request, recognize and bargain with the District
Council as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the following appropriate unit concerning terms and
conditions of employment and, if an understanding is
reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
[A]ll Bricklayers, Stone Masons and Apprentices em­
ployed by the Respondent for work performed within
the Counties of Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Kane,
Kendall, McHenry, Lake and Will, Illinois, but exclud­
ing all professional employees, managerial employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(h) Give full force and effect to all terms and condi­
tions of employment contained in the collective-
bargaining agreement with the District Council.
(i) Withdraw recognition from Local 707 as the exclu­
sive representative of the J-A-M unit, until that union has
demonstrated its majority status pursuant to a Board-
conducted election, and cease giving effect to the collec­
tive-bargaining agreement entered into with Local 707.
(j) Reimburse unit employees for all dues and fees
paid by employees to Local 707, in the manner set forth
in the remedy section of this decision.
(k) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig­
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so­
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(l) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facilities in Geneva, Illinois, and Aurora, Illinois, cop­
ies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”7 Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 13, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respon­
dent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con­
spicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the no­
tices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other
material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed its facilities involved in these proceedings, the
Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own exp ense,
a copy of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since mid-December, 2000.
(m) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible
official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na­
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg­
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
804 DECISIONS 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

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio­
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene­
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT render unlawful assistance and support
to Production Workers Union of Chicago and Vicinity,
Local 707, an Affiliate of the National Production Work­
ers Union (Local 707) by soliciting you to sign Local 707
authorization cards and threatening to discharge you for
refusing to join Local 707.
WE WILL NOT render unlawful assistance and support
to Local 707 by soliciting you to withdraw from Illinois
District Council No. 1 of the International Union of
Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, AFL–CIO (District
Council 1) and join Local 707.
WE WILL NOT grant recognition to Local 707 as the ex­
clusive bargaining representative of the J-A-M unit (all
construction workers employed by J-A-M), until Local
707 has demonstrated its majority status pursuant to a
Board-conducted election.
WE WILL NOT enter into and give effect to a collective-
bargaining agreement with Local 707 at a time when we
are obligated to recognize and bargain with District
Council 1.
WE WILL NOT instruct you to withdraw from the District
Council and accept Local 707 as your collective-bargaining
agent if you wish to continue your employment.
WE WILL NOT discharge you because you refuse to join
Local 707 and refrain from engaging in protected con­
certed activities, and to discourage other employees from
engaging in protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT encourage you to join Local 707 by en­
tering into a collective-bargaining agreement containing
a clause requiring you, as a condition of continued em­
ployment, to become and remain members in good stand­
ing of Local 707.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to provide information
requested by District Council 1 on February 24, 2001,
which is necessary for, and relevant to, District Council
1’s performance of its function as the exclusive represen­
tative of the unit.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively
and in good faith with District Council 1.
WE WILL NOT withdraw recognition from District Coun­
cil 1 as exclusive bargaining representative of the unit.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to apply the terms and con­
ditions of the collective-bargaining agreement entered into
with District Council 1 to the following unit of employees:
[A]ll Bricklayers, Stone Masons and Apprentices em­
ployed by us for work performed within the Counties
of Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kendall,
McHenry, Lake and Will, Illinois, but excluding all
professional employees, managerial employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change the terms and condi­
tions of employment as contained in the collective-
bargaining agreement entered into with District Council 1.
WE WILL NOT refuse to abide by the collective-
bargaining agreement entered into with District Council 1.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exe rcise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer James O’Grady, Thomas Delaney, and Ste­
ven Novelli full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
their former jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiva­
lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make James O’Grady, Thomas Delaney, and
Steven Novelli whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits resulting from their unlawful discharges, less
any interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw­
ful discharges of James O’Grady, Thomas Delaney, and
Steven Novelli, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter,
notify them in writing that this has been done and that
their unlawful discharges will not be used against them
in any way.
WE WILL make whole all unit employees for any loss
of earnings and other benefits resulting from our refusal
to comply with the terms of the collective-bargaining
agreement with District Council 1.
WE WILL make all fund payments required by the col­
lective-bargaining agreement with District Council 1 that
have not been made since February 1, 2001, and WE WILL
reimburse unit employees for any expenses ensuing from
our failure to make the required payments.
MICHAEL J. VORKAPIC, INC. 805
WE WILL furnish District Council 1 information re-
quested in its letter dated February 21, 2001.
WE WILL, on request, recognize and bargain with Dis­
trict Council 1 and put in writing and sign any agreement
reached on terms and conditions of employment for our
employees in the bargaining unit:
[A]ll Bricklayers, Stone Masons and Apprentices em­
ployed by us for work performed within the Counties
of Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kendall,
McHenry, Lake and Will, Illinois, but excluding all
professional employees, managerial employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL give full force and effect to all terms and
conditions of employment contained in the collective-
bargaining agreement with District Council 1.
WE WILL withdraw recognition from Local 707 as the
exclusive representative of the J-A-M unit, until that un­
ion has demonstrated its majority status pursuant to a
Board-conducted election, and WE WILL cease giving
effect to the collective-bargaining agreement entered into
with Local 707.
WE WILL reimburse unit employees for all dues and
fees paid by employees to Local 707, with interest.
MICHAEL J. VORKAPIC, INC. MICHAEL J.
VORKAPIC, A SOLE PROPRIETOR J-A-M
MASONRY, INC.