P. A. Hayes, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 4, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 230 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
P.A. Hayes, Inc. and- P.H. Mechanical Corp. and
Pipefitters Local 537, a/w United - Association= of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting and Refrigeration -Industry of A6 -United
States and Canada , AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA--10741'
October 4, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On June 8, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Stan-
ley N. Ohlbaum issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions
and a supporting brief; and General Counsel filed an
answering brief.
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 record and the at-
tached 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 Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondents, P.H. Mechanical Corp.
and P.A. Hayes, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, their
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the said- recommended Order,
except that the attached notice is substituted for that
of the Administrative Law Judge.
1 We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that P.H Mechanical
Corp is the alter ego of P A Hayes, Inc, and is therefore bound by the
collective-bargaining agreement entered into with the Union by Hayes, Inc.,
and its recogmtional, bargaining, and other obligations
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity
to present evidence and arguments , the National La-
bor Relations Board has found that we have violated
the National Labor Relations Act, and has ordered
us to post this notice and do what it says.
The National Labor Relations Act gives all em-
ployees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help. unions,
To bargain, collectively through-
representa-tives of their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual.aid or protection
To refrain from any or all these things.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain
in good faith with Pipefitters Local 537, a/w
United Association of Journeymen. and Appren-
tices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting and' Re-
frigeration Industry of the -United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO, as the duly designated ex-
clusive bargaining 'representative of the-follow-
ing appropriate collective-bargaining unit:
All journeymen, apprentices, and metal
tradesmen employed by P.A. Hayes, Inc., or
by P.H. Mechanical Corp. (including all em-
ployees of P.H. Mechanical Corp. performing
work of the foregoing categories of employees
as set forth and defined by collective, agree-
ment between P.A. Hayes, Inc., and Pipefit-
ters Local 537, andregardless of the job titles
of said employees of P.H. Mechanical Corp.)
at or from our premises on West First Street,
Boston, Massachusetts, but, excluding all
other employees, office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in Section
2(11) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to, observe, adhere to, and
apply the provisions, terms, and conditions of
the subsisting collective-bargaining agreement
with said Union effective September 1, 1974,
through August 31, 1977, except to the extent
said agreement may be duly modified by valid
agreement with said Union.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally and -without bar-
gaining in good faith with said Union, withdraw
from, annul, nullify, abrogate, or change said
collective-bargaining agreement or any provi-
sion, term, or condition thereof, or attempt so to
do, in violation of the Act. _
WE WILL NOT, through formation or utilization
of a juridical entity, or through shifting unit
work to such other entity, or otherwise, in viola-
tion of the Act, unilaterally evade or attempt to
evade or escape from the obligations of said col-
lective-bargaining agreement while it is in force
and effect.
226 NLRB No. 39
P.A. HAYES, INC.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of their rights as stated above.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain in good faith
with said Union as such exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative, retroactively as of the
date we ceased, failed, or refused to recognize or
continue to recognize said Union; and, if re-
quested, embody in a signed agreement or
agreements any understanding reached.
WE WILL apply the promises, terms, and con-
ditions of said collective-bargaining agreement
retroactively to the time of its inception (except
to the extent it may be duly modified by valid
written agreement with the Union).
WE WILL make whole each of the pastor pres-
ent members of the aforesaid bargaining, unit to
the extent of any wages or other moneys, pen-
sion or frmge or other, benefits due, whether
payable to employees or- into the Union's pen-
sion or other fund, together with 6-percent inter-
est.
P.A. HAYES, INC.
P.H. MECHANICAL CORP.
DECISION
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT; ISSUES
STANLEY N. OHLBAUM, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding I under the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. (Act), was heard before
me in Boston, Massachusetts,: on January 6-7 and Febru-
ary 4, 1976, with all parties participating throughout by
counsel or other representative and afforded full opportu-
nity to present evidence and contentions, and also-to file
briefs which, after extension of time upon request of coun-
sel, were received by March 18, 1976. Record and briefs
have been carefully, considered.
The principal issues presented are whether Respondents
are in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
through failing and refusing to bargain with the Charging
Party Union as exclusive bargaining representative of an
appropriate collective-bargaining unit of employees and as
required under a subsisting collective-bargaining agree-
ment; and through failing and refusing to apply the provi-
sions of that agreement, executed by Respondent P.A.
Hayes, Inc., and attempting to escape therefrom and uni-
laterally establishing and maintaining different terms and
conditions of employment through the device of forming
and shifting operations to Respondent P.H. Mechanical
Corp.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the testi-
monial demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following:
1 The proceeding is based on a complaint issued by the Board's Regional
Director for Region I on September 25, as amended at the hearing, growing
out of a charge ,filed by the above Charging Party (Union) on May 29, as
amended on September 17, 1975.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. JURISDICTION
231
At all material times Respondents P.A. Hayes, Inc.
(Hayes Inc.) and P.H. Mechanical Corp. (Hayes Mechani-
cal Corp.) have been and are Massachusetts corporations,
with principal offices and sole places of business re-
spectively at premises designated as 405 West First Street
(Hayes Inc.) and 403 West First Street (Hayes Mechanical
Corp.), Boston, Massachusetts, where and whence Respon-
dents engaged in the installation, renovation, and servicing
of heating, air-conditioning, refrigeration, and ventilation
systems. During the representative year immediately pre-
ceding issuance of the complaint, in the course and con-
duct of their said business operations, each Respondent
performed services valued in excess of $50,000 for users
located in Massachusetts, including a user or users meeting
a monetary inflow or jurisdictional standard of the Board.
I find that at all material times Respondents respectively
have been and' are an employer or employers engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act. I further find that at all of those times Pipefit-
ters Local 537, the Charging Party Union herein, has been
and is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR'LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts as Found 2
Paul A. Hayes (Hayes herein) has headed up and operat-
ed a Boston-based heating/air-conditioning/refngerating/
ventilating system installation and servicing business for
many years, under one name or another. From 1968 to
March 1, 1973, this enterprise was known as, United Air-
conditioning Corporation; on the latter date that name was
changed to P.A. Hayes, Inc. (Hayes Inc. herein). Since
1970 the enterprise had been operating from a commercial
building known as 405 West First Street (Boston), its sole
premises. From September 1, 1973, to August 31, 1974,
Respondent Hayes, Inc., was a party to a collective agree-
ment with the Charging Party (Union) here; effective Sep-
tember 1, 1974, Respondent Hayes, Inc., bound itself to a
further collective agreement with the Union until August
31, 1977. These agreements cover service maintenance
work as well as installation work, and include union-secun-
ty provisions mandating maintenance of union member-
ship by unit employees.
In August 1974, at a trade association outing in Canton,
Massachusetts, a discussion took place between Hayes and
Union Business Manager Robert W. Baynes, in which
Hayes informed Baynes that it was "easy . . . to beat the
union agreement. All you have to do is form another com-
pany. Don't have the [same] two people showing on the
papers of the other company, and operate just the way you
want. This led to a little bit of a heated discussion... .
and we got to yelling a little bit over what was right and
2 Respondents called no witness. (Paul A Hayes was called as an adverse
witness by General Counsel, and information was elicited from him, as well
as from other General Counsel witnesses , by Respondents on cross-exami-
nation )
232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
what was wrong. And I told Mr. Hayes to be a dual shop
contractor it was a lot more than just forming two compa-
nies with different names running with the same people,
the same tools and out of the same shop. And Mr. Hayes
appeared to have better legal counsel than me, or he
thought he did. And when he got a little heated one of"my
business agents stepped in and grabbed me and took me
for a walk down the other end of the room... .
Following this lively exchange of views, in December
1974 Hayes and his attorney Peter D. Gens_ asked Hayes,
Inc., employee, William K. Pittman, whether he (Pittman)
was interested in "go[ing]-into business" with a''"23,per-
cent" share for himself, in a company to be known as "P.
H. Mechanical Corporation" (Hayes Mechanical Corp.
herein) since "they wanted to become a minority contrac-
tor." Pittman, who is black, readily agreed, and was'subse-
quently informed he had been made president of the "new
company" and, without investment, the owner of 23 per-
cent of its' stock, while nevertheless continuing to work as
before as an employee of Hayes, Inc. Pittman was and
remains unaware of any investment by anybody in Hayes
Mechanical Corp. Pittman, a thoroughly credible witness,
further testified that, notwithstanding the foregoing, he just
continued working in`his regular capacity as an employee
of Hayes, Inc., until May 1975, at which time he quit that
employment and voluntarily relinquished his presidency of
and surrendered his shares of Hayes Mechanical Corp.
without payment. Pittman insists that at no time was he
ever told he was no longer working for Hayes, Inc., al-
though he had noticed that commencing in March 1975 he
was paid by check of Hayes Mechanical Corp. instead of
Hayes, Inc.; Pittman also insists that in no way did the
nature of his work change until he quit in May 1975, and,
indeed, that at the time he quit he was working on a job for
one of the same customers whom he had serviced about a
year earlier. At no time did Pittman receive any income 3
from or notice of meeting of Hayes Mechanical Corp.;
when he received papers to sign relinquishing his "presi-
dency" of and surrendering his "shares" in Hayes Mechan-
ical Corp., it was from Eileen Coughlin, a longtime secre-
tarial employee of Hayes, Inc. What triggered Pittman's
resignation, withdrawal, and quitting was that he learned
from Union Business Manager Baynes that ` Hayes had
dropped him from the union pension `plan. Pittman-as I
have indicated, a thoroughly credible witness-was insis-
tent in his testimony that the nature of the business done
by Hayes Mechanical Corp. was no different from' that
done by Hayes, Inc.'
The record further establishes that prior to the described
August 1974 statement by Hayes to Union Business Man-
ager Baynes as to how "easy [it is] to beat the union agree-
ment; all you have` to do is form another company," in
May 1973 the corporation known as P.H. Mechanical
Corp. (Hayes Mechanical Corp. herein) had been formed
3 Other than his same usual pay, since March 1975 as stated above This
is conceded by Hayes.
a Pittman indicated, however, that the one job handled by him apparently
for Hayes Mechanical Corp was '"smaller" than those he had handled for
Hayes, Inc , and that under Hayes Mechanical Corp he did some work (i e.,
covering pipe with rubberized material) which he did not and could not
have done for Hayes, Inc, since it is considered as asbestos workers' work
not permitted to be done by union pipefitters.
as a Massachusetts corporation, with officers and directors
consisting of Peter D. Gens (attorney for Hayes, Hayes,
Inc., and Hayes Mechanical Corp.), M. Frederick,Pritzker
(listed on the letterhead of Gens' law firm as his partner or
associate), and Patricia A. Tuohy (Gens' secretary)-all of
85 Devonshire Street, Boston, the address of the law firm.
On January 11, 1974, there was filed with the Massachu-
setts authorities a "certificate of change of directors or offi-
cers" of Hayes, Inc. "located at 405 West First Street,
South Boston," listing as its president and treasurer Paul A.
Hayes (Hayes herein), as its clerk Jean Hayes (wife of
Hayes), and as a third director, in addition to the foregoing
two, Thomas Hayes of Medfield, Massachusetts (brother
of Hayes). On October 31; 1974, there was likewise filed
with the same,authorities a similar "certificate of change of
directors or officers" for Hayes Mechanical Corp. "located
at c/o Peter D. Gens, Fifth Floor, 85 Devonshire Street,
Boston, Mass." (i.e., Gens' law office), listing as its presi-
dent,' treasurer, and sole director Thomas J. Hayes of Can-
ton, Massachusetts (Hayes' nephew), and as its clerk, Peter
D. Gens. On December-20, 1974, there was filed a further
change substituting as president and adding as a director
of` Hayes Mechanical Corp., William' K. Pittman.
Around April or May 1975, Hayes, Inc., began default-
ing in payment of the fringe benefits (pension, etc.) pay-
able under its collective agreement with the Union, and
Union Business Manager Baynes informed Pittman that
his name was no longer "show[ing] up on the reporting
forms from the P.A. Hayes company. . . . And he [Pitt-
man] seemed very surprised to find that out. So, I [Baynes]
told him I suspected that there was something a little foul
going on. . . . what I told him [Pittman ] in so many words
was that I knew he was on the papers of the non-union
company [i.e.; Hayes Mechanical Corp.]. And I, told` him I
felt he was being probably used by these people because he
was a minority. And I suggested to him that if he?wanted to
go into business to come in and sign a legitimate agreement
and we'll give him all the help we can. But we wish he'd
remain a ,good union person. F also showed him the report-
ing forms where he was' not being reported on for that
particular month."
-On May 8, 1975, Union Business Manager Baynes dis-
patched certified letters 5 to Hayes, Inc., and Hayes Me-
chanical Corp., pointing out that they were in default in
connection with fringe (pension, health/hospitalization,
etc.) payment requirements of the subsisting collective
agreement, and requesting that the default be cured. Postal
service receipts establish that these letters were received
and signed for on behalf of both corporations on May 9,
1975, by Eileen Coughlin.6 On May 8, Baynes wrote direct-
ly to Respondents' attorney, Peter D. Gens, on the same
subject and also asking that Hayes Mechanical Corp. sign
the collective agreement. Replying on,May 19, Gens stated
that "I know of no obligation on the part of P.H. Mechani-
cal Corp. to execute any contract with Local Union 537";
that Hayes Mechanical Corp. Was in a business "in which
typically there are few union contractors, if any"; that "ba-
s The letter is apparently misdated April 7 instead of May 7 , since postal
service receipts show it was mailed May 8.
6 It will be recalled that Eileen Coughlin was the longstanding secretarial
employee of Hayes, Inc., and she continues in that capacity for Hayes Me-
chanical Corp
P.A. HAYES, INC.
sically" Hayes Mechanical Corp. did "small" jobs; that
"much attention has been devoted" by Hayes Mechanical
Corp. to "its development as a minority business enter-
prise,' an undertaking which as a very practical matter
could not be enhanced by the dearth of minority members
in your local"; and, finally, that while he would be
"pleased to discuss this with you further," it appeared that
"so long as" the "scope" of the business remained un-
changed "there can be no meaningful discussion of con-
tractual alliances with any union."
At no time has the described default in payments due
under the collective agreement been cured.
On September 3, 1975, Hayes, Inc., executed a formal
"assignment for the benefit of creditors" to Henry Ges-
mer (a partner or associate of Peter D. Gens as listed on
the law firm's letterhead) and Joseph Braunstein (another
attorney). It is noted that the assignment is signed only by
Hayes and Gesmer, and not by Braunstein, and that, not-
withstanding its recital, it is not signed by any "assenting
creditors."
When Union Business Manager Baynes visited the
premises of Hayes, Inc., on May 6,1975, immediately prior
to dispatching the aforedescribed certified letters, in order
to ascertain what was going on, he observed the usual busi-
ness sign (P.A. Hayes, Inc.) on the premises of Hayes, Inc.,
at 405 West First Street, as well as a "For Lease" sign on
the adjoining premises at 403 West First Street; and he
took photographs of these, which have been placed into
evidence here (G.C. Exhs. 15a and 15b). At the time (May
6, 1975, the 405 building was occupied, with people work-
ing inside, whereas the 403 building appeared to be unoc-
cupied and vacant. According to the testimony of Hayes,
buildings 403 West First Street (a one-story brick and base-
ment structure) and 405 West First Street (a 2- or 3-story
structure) are interconnected ("even though they were dif-
ferent buildings you could go through") with at least one
inner passageway, and the 1970 10-year lease of Hayes,
Inc., included space in the also-connected premises known
as 6 Dorchester Street (a large garage).
When Baynes attempted in September and October 1975
to persuade Hayes to operate under the collective agree-
ment, Hayes "denied he knows anything at all" about
Hayes Mechanical Corp., and merely referred Baynes to
Gens.
According to Hayes-testifying only as a General Coun-
sel witness-he was the president and principal of Hayes,
Inc,, and he has also been and is the "general manager" in
charge of all operations of Hayes Mechanical Corp., whose
president is his 25-year-old 8 nephew Stephen M. Hayes of
Medfield, Massachusetts, a rank-and-file employee of
Hayes Mechanical Corp .9 Hayes claims that Hayes, Inc.,
ceased business operations on July 5, 1975, after having
"vacated" premises 405 West First Street and 6 Dorchester
Street around May 11975 when Hayes `just got up and left
r Hayes testified at the hearing that he did not wish to do this for Hayes,
Inc., because "I didn't want to be a minority contractor , I wanted to be Paul
Hayes." Respondent placed into evidence a January 16, 1975, bid by Hayes
Mechanical Corp. for refrigeration maintenance in a school cafeteria or
cafeterias of the Town, of'Brookline (Resp. Exh. 3). Hayes conceded that
this work could have been bid and gone by Hayes, Inc., but at a higher
labor rate-close to $20 per hour instead of the $15-per-hour unit cost on
the bid of Hayes Mechanical Corp, Hayes testified that after Pittman left
Hayes Mechanical "ceased" being a minority enterprise
233
.... I was the only one left.... I just didn't, you know,
go to 405 any more. [I started going to] 403." According to
Hayes, the Hayes, Inc., business sign continues to be dis-
played on the Dorchester Street adjoining building even
now, and the Hayes Mechanical Corp. sign is on the 403
West First building.
Hayes concedes that at no time have his wife Jean, his
brother Thomas, or his nephew Thomas Jr. taken any role
in the operation of Hayes, Inc., or of Hayes Mechanical
Corp. Although Hayes professedly now considers Gens to
be his "boss" in Hayes Mechanical Corp., it is Hayes who
is in full charge of all of its business operations and who
signs all checks including those for his own pay. Hayes
went off the payroll of Hayes, Inc., on July 6 and went on
the payroll of Hayes Mechanical Corp. on July 13, 1975, at
the same pay of $600 per week.10
Hayes claims that from October 1974 to July 7, 1975, he
functioned as an unpaid "adviser" and "construction con-
sultant" to Hayes Mechanical Corp., including assisting
the accountant to establish a new set of books and hiring
new employees for it. According to Hayes, during the peri-
od of October 1974 to July 5, 1975, Hayes, Inc., and Hayes
Mechanical Corp. were both in business-with Hayes Me-
chanical Corp. occupying 403 West First Street commenc-
ing in October, without a lease 11 -and in competition
with each other, or at any rate each capable of doing the
business done by the other; and that he (Hayes ) was run-
ning both companies and deciding which one should get or
do a particular job-thus, seemingly a truly "double-
breasted" operation.12 Further according to Hayes, all rec-
8G.C. Exh. 16.
9 Hayes professes not to know to whom Hayes Mechanical Corp. stock
was issued, although he asserts it is currently all held by Gens, who, while
allegedly receiving no "income" from that corporation, at the'end of 1975
received $5,000 as a "bonus" or for "services rendered ." The foregoing af-
fords a flavor of Hayes' testimony.
]()Also according to Hayes, his secretary Eileen Coughlin left the payroll
of Hayes, Inc., during the week ending March 30, 1975, and went on the
payroll of Hayes Mechanical Corp. during the following week at a $5-
a-week increase, with access to the books and records of both corporations
for all purposes.
ii Hayes explained that Gens drew up or arranged for a lease for Hayes
Mechanical Corp' in January 1975 with the new owners of that building.
According to Hayes, in 1970 he personally owned the entire group of four
interconnected buildings "all abutted together" and gave a 10-year lease to
Hayes Inc on all or part of the premises, in 1973, or 1974, title to the
premises was transferred by Hayes to a partnership consisting of himself
(Hayes) and Gens; and the building or buildings were "sold" around De-
cember 1974 or January 1975, with the new owner presumably taking title
subject to the existing lease of Hayes, Inc However , according to Hayes, a
new lease was drawn , up or arranged by Gens for Hayes Mechanical Corp
in January 1975 with the "new owners."
12
Hayes also testified that, when Pittman left the employ of Hayes Me-
chanical Corp (Harvard jobsite project), his work was completed by em-
ployees of Hayes, Inc. and paid for by Hayes, Inc, without chargeback to
Hayes Mechanical Corp.; the same was true for services rendered to Hayes
Mechanical Corp. by Hayes himself as well as by Eileen Coughlin as em-
ployees of Hayes, Inc Conversely, Hayes, Coughlin, and on one occasion
Stephen Hayes as employees of Hayes Mechanical Corp., according to
Hayes, performed services for or required to be performed by Hayes, Inc,
without chargeback to Hayes Inc. In both of these cai'egones, it was Hayes
who decided these matters. Moreover-still according to Hayes-Hayes
Mechanical Corp has also sent its employees to do work which' Hayes, Inc,
was obligated to do under its (Hayes , Inc.) contract's or guarantees, with
some such work paid for and some not paid for; these jobs were invariably
billed by Hayes Mechanical Corp. to Hayes, Inc., and Hayes,' Inc., turned
over to Hayes Mechanical Corp. the moneys receivedi by Hayes, Inc., from
the customers . Furthermore, according to Hayes, Hayes Mechanical Corp.
Continued
234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ords of Hayes, Inc. (occupying a good-sized room), togeth-
er with its Secretary Eileen Coughlin, were shifted from
405 West First Street premises to the connected 403 West
First Street premises when Hayes Inc. "ceased" and Hayes
Mechanical Corp. "commenced" business; neither corpo-
ration has paid anything to the other for the acquisition,
use, moving, or storage of those records. According to
Hayes, the-office equipment and "miscellaneous tools" and
equipment of Hayes, Inc., were acquired by Hayes Me-
chanical Corp.
After the "move" from 405 to 403 West First Street, ac-
cording to Hayes, Hayes Mechanical Corp. obtained its
customers and business through Hayes, who merely con-
tinued to go or "went to customers" of Hayes Inc. andjust
"took over some of them." 13 According to Hayes, no con-
sideration passed for the acquisition of goodwill. Hayes
added that the customers were "dissatisfied with the union
employees" and that as a nonunion enterprise Hayes Me-
chanical Corp. is able economically to bid lower than
Hayes, Inc. (as a unionized company) would or could have.
Hayes, Inc., merely executed an "assignment for the bene-
fit of creditors," as aforedescribed, and its accounts have
been taken over by Hayes Mechanical Corp., following
which the collective agreement has been regarded as a
dead letter. At no time has Hayes, Inc., been adjudicated
or filed a petition in bankruptcy.
Of the 11 employees of Hayes Mechanical Corp. from
the inception of that corporation (including hires through
December 31, 1975) five had been employees of Hayes,
Inc.; of these five, one (Scolamiero) had been a truckdriver
with Hayes, Inc., and not covered by the collective agree-
ment, but since working for Hayes Mechanical Corp. he
does regular contract work, at a $20-a-week increase, but
as a nonunion worker; another (Stephen Hayes, Hayes'
young nephew and "president" of Hayes Mechanical
Corp.) has been paid at only the apprentice pay scale, as
distinguished from the higher "service mechanic" pay set
forth in the collective-agreement for the work he is doing;
and Hayes himself also works with the others to the extent
he desires to do so, in contrast to the prohibition on such
work under union conditions. According to Hayes, the re-
maining three to five employees of unionized Hayes, Inc.,
did not transfer to nonunionized Hayes Mechanical Corp.
but "saw the handwriting on the wall" and left "voluntari-
ly," and-in contrast to the employees of Hayes Inc.-
none of the employees of Hayes Mechanical Corp. (except
Pittman, until he quit) was or is a member of the Union. It
is conceded that the employees of Hayes Mechanical
Corp., not being subject to any union rules, requirements,
or restrictions, have been doing work which the union
members of the bargaining unit in Hayes, Inc., were pre-
cluded from doing (i.e., sheetmetal and other work).
It is Hayes' contention that Hayes Inc. "went out of
business" at least in part because it could not meet its
performed services for Holy Cross College during the existence of a Holy
Cross College contract with Hayes, Inc
13 Hayes evaluates himself as a "substantial asset" to any enterprise in the
heating/air-conditionmg/refrigeration/ventilation line, because of his per-
sonal contacts-with customers such as Boston Symphony and Harvard Uni-
versity. As Hayes bluntly puts it, "all they know is Paul Hayes " He adds
that the Hayes Mechanical Corp rates (as a nonunion enterprise) are sub-
stantially lower than those of Hayes, Inc (as a unionized enterprise).
bonding obligations to or satisfy the requirements of its
corporate surety company, assertedly- because it was no
longer able to operate "profitably" or to the degree of its
profit expectation as a unionized enterprise, in view of the
financial requirements of the collective agreement. Al-
though, according to Hayes, Hayes Mechanical Corp. has
not undertaken any "bonded" jobs, Hayes concedes that
(1) bonds were not required on all jobs done by Hayes,
Inc.;14 (2) the unbonded work which had been done by
Hayes, Inc., is now being done by Hayes Mechanical
Corp.; (3) if it had so desired, Hayes, Inc., could have re-
stricted its operations to work not requiring bonds; and (4)
Hayes Mechanical Corp. is at least to an extent doing the
same kind of work as, for at least some of the customers of,
Hayes, Inc. -
According to Hayes, approximately 80 percent of the
accounts of Hayes Mechanical Corp. consist of the former
customers of Hayes, Inc. The accounts of Hayes, Inc.
(shown as "HI" in the listing which follows) which Hayes
Mechanical Corp.15 (shown as "HMC" in the following
listing)- "took over" or to which it succeeded, concededly
"through me"-i.e., Hayes alone-were substantial in
number and included the following, according to Hayes:
Name Year Amt. (approx.)
Cambridge City Hospital 1974 HI $ 14,000
1975 HMC 25,000
Chestnut Hill Mall _ 1974 HI (subcontract)
(Brookline) 1975 HMC 8,000
Harvard University 1974 HI 48,000
1975 HMC 35,000
Holy Cross College 1974 HI 18,000
1975 HMC 16,000
New England Telephone Co. 1974 HI 50,000
1975 HMC 3,000
Shawmut Bank 1973-74 HI 110,000
1975 HMC 30,000
Symphony Hall 1974 HI 6,000
1975 HMC 8,000-10,000
Town of Brookline, Mass. 1974 HI 3,000
1975 HMC 10,000
U & U ("You and You") Store
(Chestnut Hill Mall) 1974 HI 310
1975 HMC 310-400
United Christian 1974 HI 8,000
Evangelical Assn. 1975 HMC 11,000
Figure 1 shows the comparative business done by Hayes
Mechanical Corp. and Hayes Inc. during 1974 and 1975 in
various work categories.
14 Thus, Hayes, Inc, did unbonded as well as bonded work for Harvard
University, one of its regular customers which Hayes Mechanical Corp
"took over" or to which it succeeded. Hayes testified that in 1974 the "un-
bonded" work of Hayes, Inc, amounted to $134,000, with $40,000-50,000
for one customer (Richard Clark) alone
15 Hayes Mechanical Corp "took over" or-succeeded to the maintenance
work previously done by Hayes, Inc, as subcontractor for General Contrac-
tor Barkan (Barkin, Barken) Construction Company at Chestnut Hill Mall
P.A. HAYES, INC. 235
Fig. 1. Comparative Business: Hayes Mechanical Corp. vs. Hayes Inc. (in Dollars)
(HI: Hayes Inc.; HMC: Hayes Mechanical Corp., Tot : Total HI + HMC)
Subcontractor
Installations: Bonded
Subcontractor ?
Installations, Unbonded Service & Maintenance Window Units
Installations
(Other Than Window)
Time Period HI HMC Tot. HI HMC Tot. HI HMC Tot. HI HMC Tot. HI EMC Tot.
1974 Jan 96,307 0 96 , 307 16,430 0 16,430 1579 0 1579 600 0 600 17 499 0 12,199
Feb. 103,136 0 103,136 20,901 0 20,901 6392 0 6392 413 0 413 10 096 10,096
Mar. 74,405 0 74,405 11,327 0 11,327 6841 0 6841 0 0 0 2310 0 2310
Apr. 101,725 0 101,725 32,910 0 32,910 5040 0 5040 1068 0 1068 2521 0 2521
May 87,691 0 87,691 8500 0 8500 8986 0 8986 2227 0 2227 0 0 0
Jun. 196,553 0 196,553 4121 0 4121 6825 0 6825 4398 0 4398 212 0 212
Jul. 239,476 0 239,476 7448 0 7448 4059 0 4059 2917 0 2917 11,032 , 0 11,032
Aug. 85 , 794 0 85,794 353 0 353 3427 0 3427 1680` 0 1680 0 0 0
Sep. 163,428 0 163,428 15,870 0 15,870 1890 0 1890 2863 0 2863 24 562 0 24,562
Oct. 90 , 362 0 90,362 12 , 786 0 12,786 2493 )8456 2131
600
6000
131 15413 1672
Nov. 27 , 479 0 27,479 0 0 0
,
264 3 30 3
0
Dec. 42,648 0 42,648 13 , 912 0 -13 , 912 0 5346 5346 0 375 375 17 ,058 3096 20 154
1975 Jan. 31,400 0 31,400 8000 0 8000 0 7457 7457 0 615 615 0 1789 11,789
Feb. 58,155 0 58,155 12,000 0 12,000 180 8300 8480 0 245 245 0 0 0
Mar 23,705 0 23,705 6017 0 6017 0 3630 3630 0 0 0 0 1144 11,144
Apr. 9000 0 9000 4000 0 4000 0 9514 9514 0 0 0 0 6447 16,447
May 3000 0 3000 15 , 000 0 15 , 000 0 8251 8251 0 1897 1897 0 7800 7800
Jun. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6551 6551 800 2496 3296 0 2328 2328
Jul. 0 0 0 1000 0 1000 0 27280 27280 0 2016 2016 0 130255 ,30 255
Aug. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9947 9947 0 442 442 1 01 7478 17 , 478
Sep. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13656 13656 0 0 0 0 0199 30 199
Oct. 0 0 0 0 25,500 25 , 500 0 7977 7977 0 0 0 0 0891 10 891
Nov. 0 0 0 0 23,750 23,750 0 3142 3,142 1 1 0 0 0 0 0000 10 000
Dec. 0 0 0 0 3 Y 0- 9 9 1 1 0 ? 9 9 9 9
Figure 2 shows the comparative annual totals 16 of these der these circumstances, it is apparent that for practical
business figures for 1974 and 1975 for the work categories, purposes at least a substantial segment of the business of
other than "`bonded" subcontract installation," shown on Hayes, Inc., has merely been diverted, shunted, or shifted
Figure 1. to Hayes Mechanical Corp. as its alter ego; and that in
Fig. 2 - Comparative 1975 vs. 1974
Business Totals by Work Categories
(in Dollars)
1974 1975
(Jan.-Nov.
only)
Subcontractor 144,558 100,713
Installations,
Unbonded
Service and 61,598 105,885
Maintenance
Window Units 17,141 8,511
Owners' Instal - 84,758 148,331
lations (Other
than Window)
Total 308,055 363,260
It is apparent from Figures 1 and 2, which are derived
from Respondent's own books and records (Resp. Exh. 4)
that-aside from "bonded" subcontract installation work,
which has not yet been undertaken by Hayes Mechanical
Corp. for reasons of its own-the decline in the business of
Hayes, Inc., was paralleled by a commensurate rise in the
business of Hayes Mechanical Corp. And, as has already
been indicated, Hayes himself acknowledges that the latter
corporation, through him, just "took over" the business of
the former, so that what he estimates as 80 percent of the
accounts of the former were passed over to the latter Un-
16 For only January-November 1975 -
17 "Bonded" subcontract installation, concededly not undertaken to date
by Hayes Mechanical Corp, is commented upon in sec 1I1,B, infra
essence what was here transacted by Hayes, Inc., in con-
cert with Hayes Mechanical Corp., in an attempt to free
Hayes, Inc., from its obligations under its collective agree-
ment with the Union, was that, while Hayes Inc. was under
collective agreement with the Union, and without bargain-
ing with the Union, a new corporation (i.e, Hayes Me-
chanical Corp.) was activated and took over the clientele
and continued to handle the business which Hayes, Inc.,
had been doing or would have done under the collective
agreement, but assertedly free from the obligations of that
agreement. I so find.
B. Discussion and Rationale
While it is of course true that an employer may go out of
business rather than enter into a contract with a union,18
nevertheless, once a collective agreement has been entered
into the employer may not "escape" from it through the
expedient of executing an "assignment for the benefit of
creditors" 19 or "going out of business" only to resume it in
another form 20 A contractual obligation may not be uni-
laterally erased merely because performance has become
unprofitable or burdensome, or because it was improvi-
dently entered into
Since only an "assignment for the benefit of cred-
itors"-unilaterally accomplished by Respondent Hayes
18 Textile Workers Union of America v Darlington Manufacturing Co et
al, 380 U S 263 (1965)
19 Nestor Brothers, Inc, 222 NLRB 466 (1976)
20 E Bressette as Secretary-Treasurer No 22727, AFL-CIO v. Internation-
al Talc Company, Inc, 527 F 2d 211, 215 (C A 2, 1975), Elite Chief, Inc, 220
NLRB 1112 (1975), Plumbers Local Union No 519 of Miami, Florida v
Service Plumbing Co, Inc, 401 F Supp 1008 (D C Fla, 1975), Stone &
Continued
236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Inc. itself through the mere stroke of Hayes' pen-is in-
volved here, it is unnecessary to consider what if any the
effect of a bankruptcy proceeding might have been. Such
an "assignment for the benefit of creditors" neither erases
nor stays the statutory bargaining obligation of the assig-
nor. Furthermore, the remedial order in an unfair labor
practices proceeding extends to the Respondent's assign-
ees.
Respondents contend that, as shown by some of their
figures, the nature of the business of Hayes Mechanical
Corp. differs from that of Hayes Inc. in that the operations
of Hayes Mechanical Corp. have been smaller in scale and
that it has not (as yet) undertaken any work requiring sure-
ty company "bonding." " Even were it to be assumed that
this is true-in the face of the conceded facts that 80 per-
cent of their chief customers remain the same-such mat-
ters are in any event subject to change at will and there is
no reason to assume that profitable business would be
turned away. The fact of the matter is that Hayes Mechani-
cal Corp. is essentially the same enterprise as Hayes, Inc.,
even assuming that its direction may have been turned or
modified, or that its scope or extent may be somewhat
more limited; and that, if it chose to do so, Hayes Mechan-
ical Corp. could at any time extend its operations to corres-
pond precisely to those of Hayes, Inc., just as Hayes, Inc.,
could at any time have limited or otherwise changed its
operations to correspond to those being carried on by
Hayes Mechanical Corp. The collective agreement covers
service and maintenance work as well as installation work.
There are all sorts of reasons why Respondents or either of
them might desire, as a matter of business expediency, to
discontinue "bonded" work as unprofitable or otherwise
undesirable; the cessation of that kind of work as a deliber-
ate business decision, as here, does not constitute a legal
basis for unilateral', nullification of a collective agreement,
covering work whether "bonded" or unbonded. Indeed,
Hayes' testimony at the hearing here that the reason Hayes
Mechanical Corp. has not undertaken "bonded" work is
that it requires a "personal" indemnity agreement which
neither Hayes nor Gens is willing to provide, constitutes an
explanation that would have been applicable as well for
Hayes, Inc., so that the decision to discontinue "bonded"
work would appear to be immaterial to the basic issues
here presented.
Respondents also urge that certain changes in their per-
sonnel further establish that the business of Hayes Me-
chanical Corp. is essentially different from that of Hayes,
Inc. In the,overview of the case, however, those personnel
Thomas, 221 NLRB 573 (1975), Miami Industrial Trucks, Inc and Bobcat of
Dayton, Inc, 221 NLRB 1223 (1975), Wiley Bros Transit Mix, Inc Sham-
rock Sand and Rock Inc and Shamrock Trucking, Inc, 211 NLRB 382
(1974); B & J Plumbing, Inc. and Hagan Brothers, Inc, 176 NLRB 293
(1969), J Howard Jenks, d/b/a Glendora Plumbing, 165 NLRB 101 (1967),
Garwin Corporation, 153 NLRB 664 (1965), enfd. as modified 374 F.2d 295
(C A D C, 1967), cert denied 387 U S 942 (1967), Supplemental Decision
169 NLRB 1030 (1968), enfd 70 LRRM 2465, 59 LC ¶13,342 (C A.D C,
1969), cert denied 395 U S. 980 (1969) Gerace Construction, Inc. and Helger
Construction Company, Inc., 193 NLRB 645 (1971), and Frank N Smith
Associates, Inc and Keuka Construction Corporation; 194 NLRB 212 (1971),
relied on by Respondents, are readily distinguishable; unlike here, those
cases involved clearly separated businesses, and not commonly controlled
and operated businesses with one phased out while the other "took over "
changes are consistent with the contention of General
Counsel and the Charging Party that, in shifting operations
from Hayes, Inc., to Hayes Mechanical Corp., Hayes
sought basically-as he openly indicated and foretold-to
shift to a nonunion operation and thereby to rid himself of
the obligations of the collective agreement; to carry this
out, it was obviously essential to sign up a nonunion crew
for Hayes Mechanical Corp. in place of the union crew of
Hayes, Inc.
Under the circumstances shown and found, considering
in realistic terms the essential continuity of the location of
the business as an uninterruptedly ongoing enterprise, its
principals and management, its custom and clientele com-
prising its most valuable asset, and its manner of opera-
tions_and business viewed as a totality, d find, within the
frame of reference of the record as a whole, Hayes Me-
chanical Corp. to be the alter ego of Hayes, Inc., to the
extent at any rate- of being bound by the collective agree-
ment entered into with the Union by Hayes, Inc., and its
recognitional, bargaining, and other- obligations.
It is accordingly determined that by their described ac-
tions Respondents have jointly and severally failed to ful-
fill their statutory obligation of bargaining collectively with
the Union as the duly designated and recognized exclusive
bargaining representative of the appropriate bargaining
unit here; have unilaterally applied terms and conditions
of employment (wage rates, work, job classifications, union
membership, pensions, etc.) other than those set forth in
and required by the subsisting collective agreement with
the Union, and have sought to nullify that agreement; and
have interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the
Act, all in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record, I
state the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Jurisdiction is properly asserted in this proceeding.
2. Under the circumstances described and found in sec-
tion III, supra, Hayes Mechanical Corp. was and is the
alter ego, as well as technical successor, of Hayes, Inc., and
was and is bound by the provisions, terms, and conditions
of the collective agreement effective September 1, 1974-
August 31, 1977, between Hayes, Inc. and the Union, and
has been and is obligated to comply therewith and to rec-
ognize, bargain, and otherwise deal as appropriate with the
Union as the duly authorized exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the appropriate employee unit herein, viz:
All journeymen, apprentices, and metal tradesmen
employed by Respondents or either of them (including
all employees of P.H. Mechanical Corp. performing
work of the foregoing categories of employees as set
forth and defined by collective agreement between P.
A. Hayes, Inc. and Pipefitters Local 537, and regard-
less of the job titles of said employees of P.H. Me-
chanical Corp.) at or from the premises of Respon-
dents or either of them on West First Street , Boston,
Massachusetts, but excluding all other-employees, of-
fice clerical employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
P.A. HAYES, INC. 237
3. By failing and refusing, under the circumstances de-
scribed and found in section III, supra, to continue to ac-
cord recognition to and bargain with the Union, and to
apply the provisions, terms, and conditions of said collec-
tive agreement, and by unilaterally changing and attempt-
ing to nullify the same, Respondents have jointly and sev-
erally violated and are continuing to violate Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
4. The unfair labor practices comprising said violations
have affected, are affecting, and unless permanently re-
strained and enjoined will continue to affect, commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
All -journeymen, apprentices, and metal tradesmen
employed by Respondents or either of them (including
all employees of P.H. Mechanical Corp. performing
work of the foregoing categories of employees as set
forth and defined by collective agreement between P.
A. Hayes, Inc. and Pipefitters Local 537, and regard-
less of the job titles of said employees of P.H. Me-
chanical Corp.) at or from the premises of Respon-
dents or either of them on West First Street, Boston,
Massachusetts, but excluding all other employees, of-
fice clerical employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
REMEDY
Respondents, having been found to be in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act,21 should be required to
cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
actions in effectuation of the policies of the Act. Those
affirmative actions should consist of acknowledging con-
tinued recognition of the Union, applying the provisions of
the collective agreement, and making whole employees as
appropriate for the failure to do so, together with interest
computed as explicated by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, (1950) and Isis Plumbing & Heat-
ing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), making available necessary
records for computation purposes; and posting the usual
informational notice. 22
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, there is hereby issued the following:
ORDER23
Respondents P.A. Hayes, Inc., and P.H. Mechanical
Corp., Boston, Massachusetts, jointly and severally, and
their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing to continue to recognize and bargain in good
faith with Pipefitters Local 537, a/w United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefit-
ting and Refrigeration Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO, as the duly designated exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the following appropriate collec-
tive-bargaining unit:
21 No violation of Sec 8(a)(3) is alleged or was litigated here.
22 I reject Respondents' plea that, if they be found in violation here, the
remedy be restricted to a bargaining order This contention overlooks the
fact that there already is in effect here a signed and binding collective
agreement. Cf. M S.P. Industries, 222 NLRB 220 (1976) Under the circum-
stances, it is appropriate that Respondents merely be required to acknowl-
edge or confirm the recognized status of the Union and that collective
agreement, and the Order shall in effect so provide. There is, of course,
nothing to prevent the parties from negotiating a mutually acceptable modi-
fication of that agreement Merely to require Respondents to bargain for a
contract at this juncture would permit them to accomplish through unfair
labor practices their object of depriving unit employees of the "fruits of
[their union] contract." Local 1912, International Association of Machinists v
United States Potash Company, Division of United States Borax and Chemical
Corporation, 270 F.2d 496, 498 (C A. 10, 1959), cert denied 363 U.S. 845
(1960), cited with approval in Local 627, International Union of Operating
Engineers, AFL-CIO [Peter Kiewit Sons' Company,) v N L.R B., 518 F.2d
(b) Failing, in violation of the Act, to continue to ob-
serve, adhere to, and apply the provisions, terms, and con-
ditions of the subsisting collective agreement with said
Umon effective September 1, 1974-August 31, 1977, ex-
cept to the extent said agreement may be duly modified by
valid agreement with said Union.
(c) Unilaterally and without bargaining in good faith
with said Union, withdrawing from, annulling, nullifying,
abrogating, or changing said collective agreement or any
provision, term, or condition thereof, or attempting so to
do, in violation of the Act.
(d) Through formation or utilization of a juridical enti-
ty, or through shifting unit work to such other entity, or
otherwise, in violation of the Act, unilaterally evading or
attempting to evade or escape from the obligations of said
collective agreement while it is in force and effect.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
right of self-organization; to form, join, or assist any labor
organization; to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing; to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutu-
al aid or protection; or to refrain from any and all such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be af-
fected by an agreement lawfully requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment, as au-
thorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify said Union, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, that the recognition of said Union as
exclusive bargaining representative of the aforesaid collec-
tive-bargaining unit is acknowledged and confirmed for all
1040, 1049 (C.A.D.C, 1975). The Order does not impose contract terms
upon an employer who never agreed to them, but merely requires Respon-
dents to reinstate and honor the contract agreed to and from which they
sought unlawfully to escape N L.R.B. v. Strong, d/b/a Strong Roofing and
Insulating Co, 393 U.S. 357, 359-362 (1969); NL R.B v. Gene Hyde, d/b/a
Hyde's Supermarket 339 F 2d 568, 572 (C A. 9; 1964). The Order also re-
stores the terms and conditions of employment which Respondents unilater-
ally altered and thereby establishes a predicate for future good-faith negoti-
ations Fibreboard Paper Products Corp v. N.L.R B., 379 U S. 203, 216
(1964).
zr 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.
238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
purposes under the collective agreement effective Septem-
ber 1, 1974-August 31, 1977.
(b) Upon request, bargain in good faith with said Union
as such exclusive collective-bargaining representative, ret-
roactively as of the date when Respondents or either of
them ceased, failed, or refused to recognize or continue to
recognize said Union; and, if requested, embody in a
signed agreement or agreements any understanding
reached.
(c) Applying the provisions, terms, and conditions of
said collective agreement retroactively to the time of its
inception (except to the extent it may be duly modified by
valid written agreement with the Union), make whole each
of the past or present members of the aforesaid bargaining
unit to the extent of any wages or other moneys, pension,
or fringe or other benefits due, whether payable to employ-
ees or into the union pension or other fund, together with 6
percent interest computed in the manner referred to in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents,'for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, job records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other rec-
ords, documents, and entries necessary to determine any
sums, payments, or benefits due under and the extent of
compliance with the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at their premises on West First Street, Boston,
Massachusetts, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix." za Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Board's Regional Director for Region 1, after being signed
by Respondents' authorized representatives, shall be post-
ed by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and
maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
24 In the event this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice "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 "