Pacific Intercom Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1981

255 N.L.R.B. 184 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pacific Intercom Co. and International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local 11. Case 31-CA-
9360
March 23, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 13, 1980, Administrative Law
Judge Gordon J. Myatt issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent, Pacific Intercom Co., the Charging Party, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 11 (hereinafter the Union), and the General
Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
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, find-
ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge, as modified herein, and to adopt his recom-
mended Order, as modified below.
The General Counsel and the Union have ex-
cepted to the Administrative Law Judge's limita-
tion of the remedy to the term of the collective-
bargaining agreement repudiated by Respondent in
1979.2 The Administrative Law Judge ruled that to
' The General Counsel has filed a motion to strike Respondent's excep-
tions, and brief in support thereof, on the grounds that Respondent's ex-
ceptions were not timely filed with the Board in conformity with the re-
quirements of Secs. 102.113 and 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended. Respondent mistakenly filed its exceptions
with Region 31 of the NLRB and not with the Board in Washington,
D.C. The General Counsel's motion is hereby denied since Respondent's
exceptions and brief were accepted by the Associate Executive Secretary
of the Board as misdirected to the Regional Office and, in such circum-
stances, they are deemed to be properly filed.
a The record shows that, in 1966, Ronald Podogil, the owner and sole
proprietor of Respondent, entered into an agreement with the Union enti-
tled, "Non-Association Members Signing Union Agreement." Respondent
thereby agreed with the Union to be bound by the Intercommunication
and Sound Agreement between the Los Angeles Chapter of the National
Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) and the Union, until such
time as written notice of revocation is given by either party not less than
90 days prior to the expiration of the Intercommunication and Sound
Agreement. Shortly thereafter, Podogil signed a "Letter of Assent"
agreement with NECA in which he authorized NECA to act as his col-
lective-bargaining representative for all matters contained in the Inter-
communication and Sound Agreement. The Letter of Assent provided,
inter alia, that the authorization would be effective until terminated by
written notice as set forth in the Intercommunication and Sound Agree-
ment. On June 20, 1972, Respondent entered into another Non-Associ-
ation Members Agreement with the Union.
The effective dates of the various Intercommunication and Sound
Agreements between NECA and the Union were as follows:
July 1, 1965, to June 20, 1968
July 1, 1968, to June 30, 1971
August 22, 1971, to June 1, 1973
June 1, 1973, to May 31, 1975
June 1, 1975, to May 31, 1977
June 1, 1977, to May 31, 1978
June 1, 1978, to May 31, 1980
At no time following the signing of the Non-Association Members
Agreement in 1972 has Respondent given the Union timely notice of rev-
ocation as required by the agreement. Thus, the collective-bargaining re-
lationship between Respondent and the Union has been continuously on-
going since the signing of the June 1972 Non-Association Members
Agreement.
255 NLRB No. 28
extend the remedial order beyond the dates of the
collective-bargaining agreement in effect at the
time of Respondent's repudiation would be punitive
and not remedial. The General Counsel and the
Union argue that such a remedial limitation is con-
trary to the Board's policy as set forth in Don Bur-
gess Construction Corporation d/b/a Burgess Con-
struction and Donald Burgess and Verlon Hendrix
d/b/a V & B Builders.3 We find merit in the excep-
tions.
In Burgess Construction, the Board held that, as a
matter of equity, when a respondent fraudulently
conceals its unlawful conduct the 10(b) period of
limitations is tolled from the date on which re-
spondent's unfair labor practices commenced until
the union acquires knowledge of the unfair labor
practices. 4 The 10(b) period is tolled for the pur-
poses of filing a charge as well as for purposes of
fashioning a remedy.
The record reveals that, in June 1972, Respond-
ent embarked on a long and elaborate journey of
unlawful conduct aimed at deceiving the Union
and depriving its employees of the fruits of their
labor and the collective-bargaining process. On
June 23, 1972, Respondent executed a private
agreement with its employee Robert R. Spencer
which provided, inter alia, for wage payments at
less than the contractual wage rate and for a modi-
fied fringe benefits plan.5 Furthermore, by issuing
false pay stubs to its employees, by failing to use
the Union's hiring hall when additional employees
were needed, and by submitting false reports and
payments based thereon to the various trust funds,
Respondent further demonstrated its wide-ranging
and continuing contempt for the Union and for the
collective-bargaining process. Respondent's myriad
unfair labor practices reflect a calculated and con-
certed effort to bypass the terms of the collective-
bargaining agreement, and to disregard the man-
date of the National Labor Relations Act. Accord-
ingly, we find that, in order to effectuate more
fully the policies of the Act, we shall order Re-
spondent to comply with the terms of the Inter-
communication and Sound Agreements retroactive-
ly to June 23, 1972, the date of the commencement
of the unfair labor practices found herein. This in-
cludes making employees whole for the losses they
incurred, and making the Union whole for the
losses it incurred as a result of Respondent's unfair
labor practices. 6 To rule otherwise would cause
227 NLRB 765 (1977), enfd. 596 F.2d 378 (9th Cir 1979).
See Pullman Building Company, 251 NLRB 1048 (1980).
It is apparent from the record that a similar agreement was reached
between Respondent and employee Kenneth C. Green.
6 It is noted that each of the Intercommunication and Sound Agree-
ments entered into by the Union and NECA between 1971 and 1978 con-
Continued
PACIFIC INTERCOM CO. 185
Respondent to be unjustly enriched for successfully
concealing its fraudulent and deceptive actions, and
would further deprive the Union and the employ-
ees of the benefits to which they are entitled under
the terms of the various collective-bargaining
agreements.
The General Counsel has also excepted to the
Administrative Law Judge's limitation of the
remedy to May 31, 1980, the expiration date of the
repudiated 1978-80 Intercommunication and Sound
Agreement. The General Counsel argues that, since
Respondent has failed to give the Union proper
and timely written notice of its intent to terminate
the Non-Association Members Agreement, Re-
spondent continues to be bound to agreement and
to the successor Intercommunication and Sound
Agreement. We agree.
The Non-Association Members Agreement,
signed by Respondent in June 1972, provides that it
shall remain in effect unless notice of revocation is
given at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the
Intercommunication and Sound Agreement. In
order to have revoked or terminated the agreement
validly, Respondent was required to provide the
Union notice prior to March 3, 1980. The Adminis-
trative Law Judge specifically found that "[a]t no
time following the signing of the Non-Association
Members Agreement in 1972 has the Respondent
given the Union notice .. terminating the various
Intercommunication and Sound Agreements
.... " Accordingly, having failed to provide
proper notice Respondent is bound to comply with
the terms of the Non-Association Members Agree-
ment and the current Intercommunication and
Sound Agreement. We, therefore, will expand the
remedy, and order Respondent to comply with the
Non-Association Members Agreement until such
time as proper notice of revocation is given pursu-
ant to the terms of the agreement.
We also find merit in the General Counsel's ex-
ception to the Administrative Law Judge's conclu-
sion that Respondent's private wage agreements
with its employees constituted a unilateral change
in the terms and conditions of the collective-bar-
gaining agreement. The Board does not consider
such conduct to be in the nature of a unilateral
change. Rather, the gravity of such conduct is its
bypassing of the Union to deal directly with em-
ployees and, for that reason, the conduct is viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Accord-
ingly, we shall modify the Conclusions of Law, the
recommended Order, and the notice.
tained union-security, hiring hall, and trust fund contribution provisions.
Respondent's unlawful conduct prevented the Union from enforcing
these provisions. Consequently, the Union lost initiation fees and mem-
bership dues it would have received but for Respondent's unfair labor
practices.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We hereby affirm the Administrative Law
Judge's Conclusions of Law as modified below:
I. Substitute the following for Conclusion of
Law 2:
"2. By bypassing the Union and directly dealing
with employees by entering into a private agree-
ment with employees to pay them at a wage scale
less than the contractual wage rate required by the
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union,
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act. Also, by deliberately avoiding the use of
the Union's hiring hall when hiring new bargaining
unit employees, and by submitting false trust fund
reports and failing to make the contractually re-
quired payments to the union trust funds, Respond-
ent has unilaterally altered the terms and conditions
of the collective-bargaining agreement in effect be-
tween it and the Union in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act."
AMENDED REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order that it
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
We shall order Respondent to comply with the
terms of the Intercommunication and Sound
Agreements retroactively to June 23, 1972, the date
it commenced its unfair labor practices; and pro-
spectively until such time as Respondent provides
proper and timely notice of revocation to the
Union pursuant to the Non-Association Members
Agreement. The Order will provide that Respond-
ent shall make employees and the Union whole for
the losses incurred as the result of Respondent's re-
fusal to comply with the terms of said agreements.
Backpay is to be computed in a manner consistent
with the Board policy as set forth in Ogle Protection
Service, Inc., and James L. Ogle, an Individual, 183
NLRB 682 (1970), with interest thereon as set forth
in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977). 7 Additionally, we shall require Respondent
to make the appropriate trust funds whole for
losses suffered during the same period as a result of
Respondent's failure to adhere to the Intercommu-
nication and Sound Agreements.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
7 Members Jenkins would compute interest in accordance with his par-
tial dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250 NLRH 146 (1980).
P A C IF I C I N T E R C O M C o ~ ~~ ~ ~~.1
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Pacific Intercom Co., Glendora, California, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as
so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(b):
"(b) Failing and refusing to abide by the terms of
the Intercommunication and Sound Agreements be-
tween the Los Angeles Chapter of the National
Electrical Contractors Association and the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
11, effective by the terms of said agreements from
August 22, 1971, through May 31, 1980, by directly
dealing with employees and by entering into a pri-
vate agreement with employees to pay them at a
wage scale less than the contractual wage rate re-
quired by the collective-bargaining agreements
with the Union, by deliberately avoiding the use of
the Union's hiring hall when hiring new bargaining
unit employees, by submitting false trust fund re-
ports, and by failing to make the contractually re-
quired payments to the union trust funds."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b):
"(b) Comply with the terms and conditions of
the above-described Intercommunication and
Sound Agreements retroactively to June 23, 1972,
and prospectively until such time as proper and
timely notice is given the Union pursuant to the
Non-Association Members Signing, Union Agree-
ment signed by Respondent in 1972, including
making the appropriate trust funds, the employees,
and the Union whole in the manner described in
our amended remedy."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a full hearing at which the parties had an op-
portunity to present their evidence, the National
Labor Relations Board has found that we, Pacific
Intercom Co., violated the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, and has ordered us to post
this notice and carry out its terms.
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To act together for collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any all of these things.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 11, as exclusive bargaining
representative of our employees in the follow-
ing appropriate unit with regard to rates of
pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment:
All employees performing electrical work
for the Employer excluding all office cleri-
cal employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to abide by the
terms of the Intercommunication and Sound
Agreements between the Los Angeles Chapter
of the National Electrical Contractors Associ-
ation and the above-named labor organization,
effective by the terms of said agreements from
August 22, 1971, and thereafter, until proper
and timely notice of revocation is given the
Union pursuant to the Non-Association Mem-
bers Signing Union Agreement, by directly
dealing with employees and by entering into a
private agreement with employees to pay them
at a wage scale less than the contractual wage
rate required by the collective-bargaining
agreements with the Union, by deliberately
avoiding the use of the Union's hiring hall
when hiring new bargaining unit employees,
and by submitting false trust fund reports and
failing to make contractually required pay-
ments to the union trust funds.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
with the above-named Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of our employees in
the above-described unit with regard to rates
of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment.
WE WILL comply with the terms and condi-
tions of the Intercommunications and Sound
Agreements to which we are bound, retroac-
tively to June 23, 1972, and until we give the
Union timely notice of revocation, by not di-
rectly dealing with employees, by not entering
into a private agreement with employees to
pay them at a wage scale less than the con-
tractual wage required by the collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Union, by not de-
liberately avoiding the use of the Union's
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help a union
To bargain collectively through
sentatives of our own choosing
repre-
PACIFIC INTERCOM CO. 187
hiring hall when hiring new bargaining unit
employees, and by not submitting false trust
fund reports and failing to make the contrac-
tually required payments to the union trust
funds.
WE WILL make our employees whole for
any losses they may have suffered as a result
of our failure to apply the terms and condi-
tions of the Intercommunication and Sound
Agreement, including making the necessary
payment to the appropriate fringe benefit trust
funds.
WE WILL make the Union whole, with inter-
est, for any losses of initiation fees and mem-
bership dues it may have suffered as a result of
our failure to apply the terms and conditions
of the Intercommunication and Sound Agree-
ments.
PACIFIC INTERCOM CO.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GORDON J. MYATT, Administrative Law Judge: Upon
a charge filed on September 6, 1979, and amended on
November 19 by International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local No. 11, AFL-CIO (hereafter called the
Union), against Pacific Intercom Co. (hereafter called the
Respondent), the Regional Director for Region 31 issued
a complaint and notice of hearing on November 28.'
The complaint alleges that the Respondent and the
Union entered into a collective-bargaining agreement on
June 20, 1972, and have been bound by successive collec-
tive-bargaining agreements to the present date. The com-
plaint further alleges that on March 6 the Union, as the
exclusive representative of the Respondent's employees,
requested that the Respondent bargain collectively with
it regarding the unit employees and the Respondent re-
fused and continues to refuse to do so. Further, that
since March 6 the Respondent has repudiated the terms
and conditions of the collective-bargaining agreement in
effect between it and the Union and continues to do so
by: (1) refusing to make contractually required payments
into various union trust funds; (2) entering into private
agreements with employees to pay them less than con-
tractually required wage rates; and (3) refusing to utilize
the union hiring hall when hiring additional employees
to perform unit work. The complaint alleges that by this
conduct the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(hereafter called the Act).
The Respondent filed an answer in which it admits
certain allegations of the complaint, denies others, and
specifically denies the commission of any unfair labor
practices. By way of an affirmative defense, the Re-
spondent's answer asserts that the agreement between it
and the Union was an agreement governed by Section
Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein refer to the year 1979.
8(f) of the Act and since the Union never achieved ma-
jority status among the bargaining unit employees, the
Respondent was free to terminate the collective-bargain-
ing relationship anytime during the term of the agree-
ment. 2
A hearing was held in this matter in Los Angeles,
California, on April 17, 1980. All parties were represent-
ed and afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-
examine witnesses and to present material and relevant
evidence on the issues in controversy. Briefs were sub-
mitted by the parties and have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, including my ob-
servation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testi-
fying, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, Pacific Intercom Co., is, and has
been at all times material herein, a California corporation
with its office and principal place of business located in
Glendora, California. The Respondent is engaged in the
business of installing and servicing intercommunication
sound systems, closed-circuit television systems, and bur-
glar and fire alarm systems. In the course and conduct of
its business operations, the Respondent annually pur-
chases and receives goods and services valued in excess
of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the
State of California. Based on the above, I find, and the
pleadings admit, that the Respondent is, and has been at
all times material herein, an employer engaged in com-
merce and in a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local No. 11, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
I Sec. 8(f) provides:
(f) It shall not be an unfair labor practice under subsections (a) and
(b) of this section for an employer engaged primarily in the building
and construction industry to make an agreement covering employees
engaged (or who, upon their employment, will be engaged) in the
building and construction industry with a labor organization of
which building and construction employees are members (not estab-
lished, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in section 8(a) of
this Act as an unfair labor practice) because (I) the majority status of
such labor organization has not been established under the provisions
of section 9 of this Act prior to the making of such an agreement, or
(2) such agreements require as a condition of employment, member-
ship in such labor organization after the seventh day following the
beginning of such employment or the effective date of the agree-
ment, whichever is later, or (3) such agreement requires the employ-
er to notify such labor organization of opportunities for employment
with such employer, or give such labor organization an opportunity
to refer qualified applicants for such employment, or (4) such agree-
ment specifies minimum training or experience qualifications for em-
ployment or provides for priority and opportunities for employment
based on length of service with such employer, in the industry or in
the particular geographical area: Provided, that nothing in this sub-
section shall set aside the final proviso to section 8(aX 3 ) of this Act:
Provided furher, that any agreement which would be invalid, but for
clause (I) of this subsection, shall not be a bar to a petition filed pur-
suant to section 9(c) or 9(e).
PACIFIC INTECOM CO.
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The History of the Collective-Bargaining
Agreements Between the Respondent and the Union
Prior to 1968, Ronald Podogil, owner of the Respond-
ent, operated as a sole proprietorship engaged in the in-
stallation and servicing of communication and sound sys-
tems, closed-circuit TV systems, and security systems at
new construction sites as well as in buildings being re-
modeled or renovated. Sometime in 1968 Podogil incor-
porated under the name of Pacific Intercom Co., and en-
gaged in the same type of electronic installation and
servicing work. While still a sole proprietor, Podogil ex-
ecuted an agreement with the Union on June 13, 1966,
entitled, "Non-Association Members Signing Union
Agreement" (hereafter called non-association members
agreement). Under its terms, Podogil agreed to be bound
by the contract-and any amendments, modifications, or
additions thereto-between the Los Angeles Chapter of
the National Electric Contractors Association (NECA)
and the Union. (G.C. Exh. 2.) The NECA-Union agree-
ment was known as the intercommunication and sound
agreement. The non-association members agreement
signed by Podogil provided that it would remain in
effect unless notice of revocation were given by either
party not less than 90 days prior to the expiration of the
intercommunication and sound agreement. By signing the
non-association members agreement, Podogil also re-
voked any prior designation made to any association,
corporation, or individual to act as his collective-bargain-
ing representative.
Within a month or so after signing the non-association
members agreement (the record is unclear as to the exact
date), Podogil signed a separate agreement with NECA
entitled "Letter of Assent 'A."' (G.C. Exh. 5.) By virtue
of this latter agreement, Podogil again agreed to be
bound by the intercommunication and sound agreement
between NECA and the Union. He also authorized
NECA to be his collective-bargaining representative for
all matters contained in the intercommunication and
sound agreement. The letter of assent further provided
that the authorization remain in effect until terminated
by written notice to NECA and the Union 30 days prior
to the notification date provided in the intercommunica-
tion and sound agreement.
On September 30, 1968, Podogil, on behalf of the Re-
spondent, sent letters to NECA and the Union terminat-
ing all previous letters of assent as well as its agreement
with the Union (G.C. Exhs. 3 and 4). NECA responded
through its labor relations director on October 8, 1968,
advising the Respondent that its notice of termination
was untimely since the current intercommunication and
sound agreement was renegotiated with the Union on
July I of that year. NECA informed the Respondent that
it was bound by the agreement as long as it maintained
its business in Los Angeles County, absent timely notice
in accordance with the terms of the agreement. (G.C.
Exh. 6.) There is no indication in the record as to wheth-
er the Respondent considered itself bound during the
term of the agreement negotiated in 1968.
On June 20, 1972, the Respondent executed another
non-association members agreement with the Union, the
terms of which were identical to the provisions con-
tained in the previous agreement executed in 1966. (G.C.
Exh. 7.)3 After the expiration of the 1973-75 contract,
the Union struck the industry. In order to continue
working, the Respondent entered into an "Interim
Agreement" with the Union whereby it agreed to contin-
ue to be bound by the recently expired contract and any
new agreement negotiated between NECA and the
Union, retroactive to June 1, 1975. (G.C. Exh.9.) At no
time following the signing of the non-association mem-
bers agreement in 1972 has the Respondent given the
Union notice, pursuant to the terms of that agreement,
terminating the various intercommunication and sound
agreements which were negotiated with NECA.
B. The Respondent's Deliberate Efforts To Avoid the
Terms of the Various Agreements With the Union
It is clear from the evidence and the testimony that
the Respondent never intended to abide by the terms of
the intercommunication and sound agreements with the
Union. Podogil testified that, when he signed the non-
association members agreement in 1966, he was the only
employee as well as the proprietor. In 1972, the Re-
spondent had three employees performing the installation
and service work at the time Podogil signed the second
nonassociation members agreement. 4 Podogil stated he
signed the agreement because his work was stopped on a
project where the general contractor had an agreement
that all subcontractors would be signatories to a union
contract. In order to retain his work and to avoid being
stopped on future jobs where such a requirement existed,
Podogil signed the agreement in 1972.
The record indicates that the Respondent's work
force-from the time Podogil began to hire employees
until the time of the hearing herein-was permanent in
nature. Employees were not hired for specific projects.
The testimony shows that they went from job to job as
the workload dictated. Nor were they paid on a per-job
basis. Rather, they were on the Respondent's regular
payroll for as long as they were employed. According to
Podogil, the supervisors (the installation and the service
managers) assigned the work and the locations to the
employees and supervised them at each jobsite.
a At the hearing, the parties stipulated that the effective dates of the
Intercommunication and Sound Agreements between NECA and the
Union pertinent to this case were as follows:
July 1, 1965 to June 20, 1968
July 1, 1968 to June 30, 1971
August 22, 1971 to June 1, 1973
June I, 1973 to May 31, 1975
June 1, 1975 to May 31, 1977
June 1, 1977 to May 31, 1978
June 1, 1978 to May 31, 1980
All of the agreements contained union-security clauses, hiring hall pro-
visions making the Union the exclusive source of referrals on a nondiscri-
minatory basis, and fringe benefit reporting requirements.
4 Podogil testified that he had five employees at the time he signed the
agreement in 1972. However, the summary of the employee complement
over the years submitted by the Respondent (G.C. Exh. 16) discloses that
only three individuals were employed at the time the 1972 nonassociation
members agreement was signed. This summary comports with the testi-
mony of Green and Spencer who were employees during this period.
PACIFIC INTERCOM CO. 189
Shortly before or shortly after signing the 1972 agree-
ment (the record is unclear in this regard), Podogil ap-
proached employees Kenneth Green and Robert Spencer
and suggested that it would be in the Respondent's and
their mutual interest for them to join the Union.5 It is
apparent from the testimony that Podogil convinced the
two employees that the Respondent would then be able
to work union jobs without fear of being challenged and
the employees would have a greater opportunity for con-
tinuous work. Podogil told Green and Spencer that he
would pay their union dues, but he would not pay them
the wage scale required by the collective-bargaining
agreement. Both Green and Spencer accepted Podogil's
proposition and executed an agreement with the Re-
spondent setting forth their private arrangement." Under
the terms of this arrangement with the employees, the
Respondent agreed to pay the union dues and "any addi-
tional expenses" [involved with the union membership]
until the employees' wages reached 80 percent of the
journeyman rate required by the collective-bargaining
agreement. When this event occurred, the employees
were to assume responsibility for their own union dues.
The employees in turn agreed to accept the less than
union scale for a period of 4 years or "until such time as
[the Respondent] felt they had progressed to the top rate
of pay." The employees also agreed not to hold the Re-
spondent liable for the difference between the wage rates
they would receive and the wage rates required by the
collective-bargaining agreement. Spencer testified he and
Green were told by Podogil that they would receive an
hourly wage increase of 25 cents at 6-month intervals
until their wage rates equaled that required by the union
contract. The private arrangement also provided that any
fringe benefits given to the employees by the Respond-
ent, other than benefits required by the collective-bar-
gaining agreement, would cease when the wage rate of
the employees reached the contract rate for journeymen.
According to the uncontroverted testimony, after
Green and Spencer became union members, the Re-
spondent concealed the fact that the employees were re-
ceiving less than union scale by issuing two separate pay
stubs to them for each pay period. One pay stub reflect-
ed the actual wages paid to the employees and the other
showed that the employees were being paid at the union
scale. Green and Spencer retained the false pay stubs in
Month
Jan.
Feb.
5 Arthur Webster, current business representative for the Union. testi-
fied that the Union only had two classifications of members; i.e., journey-
men and apprentices. Thus, when a new employer signed a contract with
the Union, he was permitted to determine which of his current employ-
ees would be placed in the journeyman classification based on their expe-
rience and the journeyman requirements established by the collective-bar-
gaining agreement. Any employee not so selected had to be terminated
and all additional employees were to be hired through the Union's refer-
ral system.
their possession so that in the event they were chal-
lenged on a particular job, they could establish they
were being paid at the journeyman rate. In addition, the
Respondent followed a practice of sending the two union
members out on all jobs where it was known that a
union subcontractor was required. The Respondent
would then replace Green or Spencer with employees
who were not union members when it was determined
that it was safe to do so without the nonunion employees
being challenged at the jobsite.7 The evidence establishes
that the Respondent consistently followed these practices
(issuing false pay stubs and substituting nonunion mem-
bers for Green or Spencer) from the time it executed the
agreement with the Union in 1972 until it abrogated the
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union in 1979.
Whenever the Respondent acquired jobs in areas out-
side the geographical jurisdiction of the Union, it would
send either Green or Spencer to these jobsites. They in
turn would report to the local having jurisdiction over
the work. Instead of attempting to later substitute non-
union employees on these jobs, the Respondent would
secure any additional employees it needed through the
hiring hall of the area local.8
The terms of the Intercommunication and Sound
Agreement also required the Respondent to submit
monthly reports and payments to the Union for the Na-
tional Electrical Benefit and Industry funds. In addition,
the Respondent was required to and did make periodic
payments into the Apprenticeship Training and Payroll
Guarantee funds (G.C. Exh. 8). On each monthly report,
the Respondent had to designate the number of individ-
uals it employed during the reporting period. From the
time the Non-Association Members Agreement was
signed in 1972 until the abrogation of the union contract
in 1979, the Respondent filed monthly reports showing
that it only had two people (Green and Spencer) per-
forming bargaining unit work. Payments were made into
the various funds based on the purported number of
hours Green and Spencer worked during the reporting
period.
Contrary to the false monthly reports submitted to the
Union, the following tabulation, taken from the summar-
ies in evidence, shows that for each month following the
signing of the 1972 agreement, the Respondent had em-
ployees performing bargaining unit work in addition to
Green and Spencer:
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
4 4 4 7 6 5 5
5 4 4 7 6 5 5
6 See G C. Exh. 17 for the arrangement with Spencer. It is apparent
that Green signed a similar agreement, but it was not introduced into evi-
dence.
I The Respondent did this in spite of the fact that when Podogil wrote
to the Union in 1972 requesting a nonassociation members agreement, he
assured the Union that if additional employees were required on a job, he
would get them through the hiring hall. (G C. Exh. 18.)
a Webster testified that under the terms of the collctive-bargaining
agreement, when a signatory contractor performed work outside the area
of the Union's geographical jurisdiction, he was permitted to take only
one employee Any additional employees had to be secured through the
hiring hall of the sister local
PACIFIC NTERCOM CO.
190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Month
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
It is undisputed that of the employees performing unit
work, only Green and Spencer were union members. It
is also evident from the testimony that all of the non-
union employees were paid at a wage rate lower than
the rate received by Green and Spencer-who in turn
were receiving less than union scale.
Sometime in late 1977, the Respondent promoted
Spencer to the position of installation manager.9 Al-
though Spencer worked with his tools on occasion, he
was primarily responsible for hiring, firing, assigning,
and supervising the employees performing the installa-
tion work. During the time that Spencer was installation
manager, the Respondent continued to list him on the
monthly reports to the Union as one of the two bargain-
ing unit employees and made payments to the various
trust funds based on this purported employee comple-
ment. Sometime in March 1979, Spencer ceased to be in-
stallation manager and reverted back to bargaining unit
status. Several weeks later (April 1979), Spencer termi-
nated his employment with the Respondent. The records
show that the Respondent submitted a combined report
for the months of April and May 1979 to the Union.
(G.C. Exh. 15.) This report indicated that the Respond-
ent did not have any employees performing unit work
during those months. The final report submitted for June
1979 listed the names of Green and Spencer, but indicat-
ed that Spencer was no longer employed by the Re-
spondent and Green "was not working under this appli-
cation." (G.C. Exh. 14.)
C. The Abrogation of the Collective-Bargaining
Agreement by the Respondent
In April 1979, Spencer telephoned Webster, the busi-
ness representative of the Union, and informed him that
the Respondent was not paying contract wage rates or
fringe benefits and was employing nonunion members on
union jobs. Webster asked him to put the information in
a letter and, when it was received, proceeded to conduct
an investigation of the Respondent's operation. Based on
his findings, Webster instituted a grievance proceeding
with the joint conference committee against the Re-
g Spencer first testified that he became installation manager in 1979. He
later recalled that he was promoted to this position during the latter part
of 1978. David Gellatly, who became the service manager at the same
time that Spencer was promoted to installation manager, testified that the
promotions occurred in late 1977. Because of Spencer's apparent confu-
sion over the year in which the promotions occurred, I rely on Gellatly's
testimony and find that they became supervisors sometime in 1977.
1972 1973 1974 197S 1976 1977 1978 1979
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4 4 4 6 6 5 5
4 4 4 6 6 7 6
4 4 4 6 6 7 4
4 4 4 6 6 7 5
4 4 5 6 5 7 6
4 4 5 6 3 5 6
4 4 5 6 3 5 6
4 4 5 6 3 5 6
4 5
4 4
6
6
6 4 5 6
6 4 5 6
spondent for breach of contract.IO On May 1, Respond-
ent, through its consultant, advised the Union that it was
terminating the contract since it was an 8(f) agreement
and the Union was not certified as the bargaining repre-
sentative of a majority of the Respondent's employees.
(G.C. Exh. 24.) A hearing was held before the joint con-
ference committee on May 22, but the Respondent did
not appear. The committee issued an arbitration award
on July 24 ordering the Respondent to: (1) make pay-
ments into various trust funds; (2) make payments of
wages to certain union members who would have been
referred to the Respondent over the years through the
hiring hall but for the deception practiced by the Re-
spondent; and (3) submit its records for an audit by the
trustees of the various funds. (G.C. Exh. 22). The Re-
spondent replied to the arbitration award on August 7,
repudiating the findings of the Committee and refusing
to comply with the award.
Concluding Findings
The Respondent defends this case on numerous
grounds. First, it argues that a finding that its conduct is
unlawful is time-barred since the contract with the Union
was repudiated and the unilateral changes in the terms
and conditions of employment were made well outside of
the 6-month limitation period imposed by Section 10(b)
of the statute." Next, the Respondent contends that the
1972 nonassociation members agreement binding it to the
intercommunication and sound agreement was a prehire
contract under Section 8(f) and, as such, never matured
into a full bargaining relationship since the Union never
achieved majority status among the employees. Although
the Respondent seems to concede that when the 1972
agreement was executed, two of the three employees in
the then work force became union members, it asserts
that their memberships were coerced by Podogil and
therefore tainted and not reflective of the free choice of
the employees. The Respondent further contends that
'° The Joint Conference Committee is composed of local labor and
management representatives in the industry.
" Sec. 10(b) provides in part:
(b) Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in or is
engaging in any such unfair labor practice, the Board . . . shall have
the power to issue and cause to be served upon such person a com-
plaint stating the charges in that respect . .. Provided. That no com-
plaint shall issue based on any unfair labor practice occurring more
than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and
the service of a copy thereof upon a person against whom such
charge is made ....
PACIFIC INTERCOM CO. 191
under the Supreme Court's decision in Higdon Contract-
ing Co.,'2 and the Board's decisions in R. J. Smith Con-
struction Co. Inc.,' 3 and Ruttman Construction Compa-
ny,' 4 the Union never became the majority representa-
tive at any of the jobsites or projects where unit work
was performed. Therefore, according to the Respondent,
it was free to repudiate the collective-bargaining agree-
ment and withdraw recognition of the Union at any time
without violating Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. In addition,
the Respondent argues that the Union did not represent a
majority of the unit employees at the time of the repudi-
ation of the agreement in 1979, and under the Board's
decision in Haberman Construction Company, 236 NLRB
79 (1978), an 8(a)(5) violation cannot be sustained. Final-
ly, the Respondent contends that it did not voluntarily
enter into the 1972 agreement with the Union, but was
coerced into doing so in order to retain the work being
performed at that time. Presumably this compelled the
Respondent to engage in what it characterizes as 8(a)(2)
conduct by placing two employees in the Union and
paying their union dues until the agreement was abrogat-
ed within the 10(b) period.
The General Counsel, on the other hand, argues that
while the 1972 agreement was an 8(f) agreement, it ma-
tured into a full bargaining relationship when two of the
Respondent's three employees became union members
shortly thereafter. Since the Respondent never gave a
timely notice of termination during the successive collec-
tive-bargaining agreements, there was an irrebuttable
presumption that the Union was the majority representa-
tive of the employees during the life of the agreements,
and any mid-term repudiation of the contract was unlaw-
ful. Furthermore, the General Counsel contends the Re-
spondent is estopped from asserting that the Union's ma-
jority status was coerced after the signing of the 1972
agreement since the coercion, if any, was the product of
the Respondent's own unlawful conduct. The General
Counsel further argues that the Respondent is likewise
estopped from questioning the Union's majority status
during the term of the 1978-80 agreement because its de-
ceitful and fraudulent conduct, following the signing of
the 1972 agreement, prevented the Union from asserting
and enforcing the union security and hiring hall provi-
sions in the successive agreements until the violations
were discovered in April 1979.
In analyzing the numerous and converse arguments, I
am of the opinion that the record here fully supports the
finding of a violation of the Act. Perhaps the best start-
ing point is to dispose of those areas where the parties
are in agreement. The parties concur through the plead-
ings that all of the Respondent's employees performing
electrical work constitute an appropriate unit for pur-
poses of collective bargaining. It is also conceded in the
briefs that by signing the 1972 nonassociation members
agreement, the Respondent and the Union entered into a
12 N. L R.B. v. Local Union No. 103 International Association of Bridge.
Structural Ornamental Ironworkers. AFL-CIO [Higdon Contracting Co.].
434 U.S. 335 (1978).
13 R. J. Smith Construction Co.. Inc., 191 NLRB 693 (1971), enforce-
ment denied sub nom. Local 150i International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, AFL-CIO v. N.LR.B., 480 F.2d 1186 (D.C Cir. 1973).
14 Ruttrmann Construction Company 191 NLRB 701 (1971).
so-called 8(f) prehire agreement covering these unit em-
ployees. That the 1972 agreement was lawful under the
statute is without question, since Section 8(f) permits pre-
hire agreements to be "entered into when an employer
has already hired employees who will be covered under
such a contract." See D'Angelo & Kahn, Inc., 248 NLRB
396, fn. 4 (1980), and the cases cited therein.
The Respondent's claim that it was coerced into ex-
ecuting the 1972 agreement cannot be entertained at this
juncture since the alleged coercion, if indeed it ever ex-
isted, took place well beyond the 6-month period of limi-
tation set forth in Section 10(b). Local Lodge No. 1424,
International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO [Bryan
Manufacturing Co.] v. N.LR.B., 362 U.S. 411 (1960).
Therefore, while inquiry into the validity of the 1972
agreement is now foreclosed, it is permissible to examine
the nature of the contract involved in order to determine
what type of bargaining relationship resulted from the
execution of that agreement. R. J Smith Construction
Co., supra at 695.
The uncontroverted evidence discloses that several
days after the execution of the 1972 prehire agreement,
two-thirds of the Respondent's complement of unit em-
ployees became members of the Union. The contention
that the achievement of this majority status was tainted
and therefore invalid, because the Respondent coerced
the employees into joining the Union and paid their
union dues, must be rejected. As this conduct would
have violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act, the Respondent
is attempting here to raise its own unlawful actions as a
defense to this majority claim. This it cannot be permit-
ted to do. Thus, the Respondent is estopped from now
asserting its own unlawful conduct in an effort to defeat
the Union's majority status among the unit employees
after the signing of the agreement in 1972. Barwise Sheet
Metal Co., Inc., a Division of Airtran Inc., et al., 199
NLRB 372, 379 (1972).
Accordingly, I find that within a matter of days the
bargaining relationship between the Respondent and the
Union progressed from one under Section 8(f) to a full
bargaining relationship under Section 9(a) of the Act.
Ellis Tacke, d/bla Ellis Tacke Company, 229 NLRB
1296, 1303 (1978); Amado Electric, Inc., 238 NLRB 37
(1978). As such, the Respondent was not privileged to
unilaterally alter or change the terms and conditions of
employment set forth in the collective-bargaining agree-
ment, and the majority status of the Union was irrebutta-
bly presumed during the term of the agreement. Since
the Respondent thereafter became party to successive
collective-bargaining agreements through the execution
of the nonassociation members agreement in 1973, the in-
terim agreement in 1975, and successive nonassociation
members agreements in 1977 and 1978, this full bargain-
ing relationship continued unbroken through the current
contract term. Consequently, each successive agreement
likewise carried with it an irrebuttable presumption that
the Union was the majority representative of the unit
employees. Therefore, the Respondent could not unilat-
erally alter the terms of these agreements nor could it
lawfully abrogate the agreements in mid-term. Ellis
Tacke Company, supra.
PACIFIC INTERCOM Co.
192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent cannot now be heard to say that the
Union did not represent a majority of the unit employees
after December 1972 or that it did not represent a major-
ity at the time the contract was repudiated in 1979. It is
clear on this record that the fraudulent and deceptive
practices engaged in by the Respondent prevented the
Union from enforcing the union security, hiring hall, and
trust fund contribution provisions in the collective-bar-
gaining agreements over the years. By issuing false pay
stubs to Green and Spencer, by making use of hiring
halls of sister locals when working outside the Union's
geographical jurisdiction, by avoiding the use of the
Union's hiring hall when additional unit employees were
hired, by submitting false reports and payments based
thereon to the various trust funds, and by continuing to
execute successive agreements with the Union, the Re-
spondent fraudulently and deceitfully prevented the
Union from attempting to enforce the very provisions of
the collective-bargaining agreement which would have
allowed it to maintain the majority status achieved in
1972. I find, therefore, that the Respondent is estopped
on equitable principles from now asserting that the
Union was not the majority representative at the time
the collective-bargaining agreement was repudiated in
1979.15
In light of the above, I find that the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by (a) unilat-
erally changing the terms and conditions of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement governing its relationship with
the Union and the unit employees, and (b) abrogating the
collective-bargaining agreement in effect between it and
the Union when it was not privileged to do so. Amado
Electric, Inc., supra; Davis Industries, Inc., 232 NLRB 946
(1977); Ellis Tacke Company, supra.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Pacific Intercom Co. is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. By entering into a private agreement with employ-
ees to pay them at a wage scale less than the contractual
wage rate required by the collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Union, by deliberately avoiding the use of
the Union's hiring hall when hiring new bargaining unit
employees, and by submitting false trust fund reports,
and failing to make the contractually required payments
to the union trust funds, the Respondent has unilaterally
altered the terms and conditions of the collective-bar-
lS Having so concluded, I do not deem it necessary to address the Re-
spondent's claim that each successive agreement was an 8(f) contract and
that the Union's majority status had to be established for each jobsite or
project. Since I have found that the Respondent is foreclosed from ques-
tioning the Union's majority representation in the bargaining unit and
that the bargaining relationship under the 1972 and the successive agree-
ments had become a 9(a) relationship, this argument cannot be enter-
tained. But even if I were to find that the contractual relationship was
governed by 8(f), the Respondent would nevertheless be estopped from
questioning the Union's majority at the time it repudiated the contract in
1979 because of the fraudulent concealment of its conduct. Therefore, a
violation of Sec. 8(a)(5) would be found in any event. Cf. M. Construc-
tion Co.. Inc., 241 NLRB 584. fn. 1 (1979); Haberman Construction Com-
pany. supra at fn. 1.
gaining agreement in effect between it and the Union in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
3. By refusing to recognize or bargain with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its
employees and by repudiating in May 1979 the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement in effect between it and the
Union, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(I) of the Act.
4. The above unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has committed
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act, it shall be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Gen-
eral Counsel contends that since the Union, through no
fault of its own, did not discover the violations until
April 1979, due to the Respondent's fraudulent conceal-
ment of its actions, the proper remedial order should be
retroactive to the date Respondent embarked upon this
unlawful conduct when it signed the agreement on June
23, 1972. In this regard, the General Counsel cites the
Board's decision in Don Burgess Construction Corporation
d/b/a Burgess Construction and Don Burgess and Verlon
Hendrix d/b/a V & B Builders, 227 NLRB 765, 766
(1977), enfd. 596 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1979). There the
Board held the fraudulent concealment by the respond-
ent of its unfair labor practices tolled the 10(b) period
with respect to the filing of the charge, and "therefore
that the limitation period was tolled in regard to the
remedy as well." Pullman Building Company, 251 NLRB
1048 (1980).
As appealing as this argument may be in the circum-
stances of this case, I am of the view that while the
fraudulent concealment tolls the limitation period as to
the contract which was repudiated in 1979 it does not
extend to all of the prior contracts between the Respond-
ent and the Union, even though the line of succession
from 1972 to date was unbroken and the unlawful con-
duct was the same. In my judgment, to go beyond the
date of the agreement in effect at the time of the repudi-
ation would cause the corrective action to become puni-
tive rather than remedial. Accordingly, I find the proper
make-whole remedy should be retroactive to the date the
unfair labor practices commenced under the repudiated
agreement, which is June 1, 1978.
Therefore, the Respondent shall be ordered to comply
with the terms of the intercommunication and sound
agreement effective from June 1, 1978, for the balance of
its term. This shall include making employees whole for
the losses they incurred as a result of the Respondent's
refusal to abide by the terms of the agreement. Backpay
is to be computed in a manner consistent with Board
policy as set forth in Ogle Protection Service, Inc., and
James L. Ogle, an Individual, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), with
interest thereon as set forth in Florida Steel Corporation,
PACIFIC INTERCOM CO. 193
231 NLRB 651 (1977).16 In addition, the Respondent
shall be required to make the appropriate trust funds
whole for losses suffered during the same period as a
result of its failure to abide by the terms of the Intercom-
munication and Sound Agreement. 7
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record in this case and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER '
The Respondent, Pacific Intercom Co., Glendora,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of
pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment with International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local No. 11, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of its employees in the following
appropriate unit:
All employees performing electrical work excluding
all office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act, as amended.
(b) Failing and refusing to abide by the terms of the
intercommunication and sound agreement between the
Los Angeles Chapter of the National Electrical Contrac-
tors Association and International Brotherhood of Elec-
is See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Hearing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
17 No provision is made for the addition of interest at a fixed rate on
unlawfully withheld trust fund payments. This is left to the compliance
stage to determine whether any additional amounts must be paid into the
trust funds in order to satisfy the "make-whole" remedy for the reasons
stated by the Board in Pullman Building Company, supra at fn. 3.
Is 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
trical Workers, Local No. II, AFL-CIO, effective by its
terms from June 1, 1978, through May 31, 1980.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named labor
organization as the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment.
(b) Comply with the terms and conditions of the
above-described intercommunication and sound agree-
ment retroactively, including making the appropriate
trust funds and employees whole in the manner described
in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary and relevant to a determination of the
moneys due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Glendora, California, facility copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."' 9 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 31, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be conspicuously posted
immediately upon receipt thereof for 60 days thereafter
in places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in
writing, within 20 days of the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
'I In the event that 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 National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
PACIFIC INTERCOM CO. 3