Rea Construction Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 1769 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

REA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 1769
(c) Post at its terminal at Chicago , Illinois, copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix ." Copies of such notice to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Thirteenth Region , shall, after being duly signed by an authorized repre-
sentative of the Respondent , be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region , in writing , within
20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report , what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless within 20 days from the date of the receipt
of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies the said Regional Director in
writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations , the Board issue an
order requiring the Respondent to take the aforesaid action.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discharge any employees because of their participation in
concerted activities for mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to engage in concerted activities for
mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer Max Willey immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him.
GATEWAY TRANSPORTATION CO.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By--------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for '60 days from the date hereof , and must not be
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Rea Construction Company and United Brotherhood of Carpen
ters and Joiners of America, Local 1165 , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos.
11-CA-1875 and 11-CA-1896. July 31, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 3, 1962, Trial Examiner James V. Constantine issued his,
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor-
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the-
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor-
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and-
Brown].
137 NLRB No. 190.
1770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Inter-
-mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
-case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
The Board hereby adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner with the modifications of provisions 2(b) and (c) in accord
with footnotes 2 and 3 of the Recommended Order, and with the
-deletion from paragraph 1(c) of the language "except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as author-
ized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act."
i Respondent excepted to the Trial Examiner 's findings that the authorization cai ds of
employees Grainger and White were valid since the only evidence of the authenticity of the
signatures was presented by a witness whom the Trial Examiner did not credit. How-
ever, even if these cards were rejected as evidence of the Union ' s majority status, the
Union still would have had a majority on November 22, 1961, the date on which the
request for bargaining was received by the Respondent . Contrary to the Respondent's
contention the Board has held that the time as of which majority is to be determined is
the date of receipt of a request for bargaining rather than the date such request is sent.
Spitzer Motor Sales, Inc , 102 NLRB 437 , 452, footnote 46; and Nash San Diego, Inc ,
`90 NLRB 86 , 87-88.
z We agree with the Trial Examiner that Louis Aiello , et al, Co -Partners d/b/a Aiello
Dairy Farms , 110 NLRB 1365 , is inapplicable to the facts of this case as the filing of a
representation petition and holding of a hearing thereon will not defeat a contemporaneous
companion complaint case alleging refusal to bargain, where , as here , the union filed a
charge and requested permission to withdraw its petition before the election Dan River
Mills, Incorporated, Alabama Division , 121 NLRB 645 From the context in which it
was made, it is clear that the Trial Examiner 's statement that Aiello "does not require
relinquishment [ of a representation proceeding ] to be made prior to the holding of an
election" was an inadvertent error
The Respondent contends that it had a good -faith doubt as to the Union 's majority even
though it did not state such doubt , and that this doubt was evoked because the Union had
filed a petition for representation election prior to or simultaneously with the request
for bargaining which, it is argued , demonstrates the Union ' s own doubt of its majority
-status as well as its "bad faith." The thrust of the argument thus appears to be that
the filing of a petition relieved Respondent of its duty to bargain. The Board has held
-otherwise . The pendency of a petition for certification does not relieve the Respondent
of its duty to bargain nor does the filing of a petition constitute an irrevocable commit-
ment by the Union to establish its representative status only through a representation
proceeding . Arts and Crafts Distributors , Inc., 132 NLRB 166.
Under the circumstances , and particularly in view of the Respondent's subsequent con-
duct which we have found interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in the
exercise of their rights, we are persuaded that Respondent's refusal to bargain was not
because of a good-faith doubt, but rather for the intended purpose of giving Respondent
time to dissipate the Union's majority status. Accordingly, we affirm the Trial Examiner's
finding of 8(a) (5). Galloway Manufacturing Corporation , 136 NLRB 405.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed on December 27, 1961 , and February 12, 1962 , by United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Local 1165 , AFL-CIO, the
-General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , by the Regional Director
for the Eleventh Region (Wlnston-Salem , North Carolina ), issued his consolidated
REA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 1771
complaint dated March 13, 1962, against Rea Construction Company (herein called
the Respondent). In substance the complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in conduct proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act (herein called the Act), and that such conduct affected
and was affecting commerce as set forth in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Re-
spondent's answer as amended at the hearing admits many of the facts pleaded in
the complaint, but denies the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to appropriate notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner James
V. Constantine at Wilmington, North Carolina, on March 26, 1962. All parties
were represented at and participated in the hearing and were afforded the right to
present evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to offer oral argument,
and to file briefs. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and
Respondent.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the admissions in the answer and
the stipulations of the parties, and from my observation of the one witness who
testified, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a North Carolina corporation, is engaged in the construction business
in North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee. During a typical year, it purchases and
receives goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, said goods and materials
being shipped to its construction sites in North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee,
from points outside the State in which such construction work is performed. I find
that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
in this proceeding. Respondent's argument that direct inflow does not constitute
commerce is not well taken.
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Local 1165 , AFL-CIO
(herein called Local 1165 or the Union ), is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit and the request for bargaining
Sometime in 1961, the Union began to organize Respondent's employees in the
following unit, which the parties have agreed is a unit appropriate for the purpose
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All journeymen carpenters and carpenter helpers, carpenter welders, and work-
ing carpenter foremen employed by the Respondent on the Ideal Cement Com-
pany project at Wilmington and Castle Hayne, North Carolina, exclusive of
other building trade craftsmen , engineers , draftsmen , and nonworking foremen,
general foremen, clerical and professional employees, watchmen, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended.
It was agreed by the parties that "on or about" November 20, 1961, the Union
mailed a letter to Respondent requesting it to bargain (attached hereto as Appendix
A), that Respondent received this letter "in due course," and that Respondent did
not reply to this request. It was further agreed by the parties that Respondent had
62 employees in the appropriate unit on the payroll for the week ending Novem-
ber 26, 1961.
2. The Union's majority
It is crucial to the General Counsel's case to establish that the Union represented
a majority, i.e., 32 or more, of Respondent's employees when the Respondent re-
ceived the Union's request to bargain. In this connection, the following evidence
is relevant:
(,1) There was introduced into evidence by agreement of the parties 18 "authori-
zation cards" signed by employees in the appropriate unit between November 7
and 13 , 1961 . All of these employees were on Respondent 's payroll for the week
ending November 26, 1961.
1772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(2) By stipulation of the parties, an additional eight "authorization cards," all
signed on November 21, 1961, and one application card, signed November 25, 1961,
were received in evidence. All nine employees were on Respondent's payroll for
the week ending November 26, 1961, and in the appropriate unit.
(3) Without objection six additional cards were admitted in evidence. These
cards, which are undated, were signed by employees in the appropriate unit on
Respondent's payroll for the week ending November 26, 1961. They were received
by the Eleventh Regional Office of the Board at Winston-Salem on November 20,
1961, and bear a stamp of that office carrying such a legend.
(4) Through the witness Grady Roberts, an employee of Respondent who solicited
authorization cards for the Union, the General Counsel, over objection, introduced
in evidence cards of the following employees (all of whom were on Respondent's
payroll for the week ending November 26, 1961) which were obtained by Roberts
under the circumstances indicated below:
(a) Employee Charlie H. Daughtry, to whom Roberts gave a card, returned it
sometime later to Roberts with Daughtry's signature in print. Roberts did not see
it signed. This card, which is dated November 15, 1961, bears a stamp indicating
that it was received by the Board's Eleventh Regional Office on November 30, 1961.
(b) Employee Homer J. Grainger, to whom Roberts gave a card, returned it later,
signed, to Roberts. The latter did not witness the signing. The card, which is
dated November 8, 1961, bears a stamp on its back showing that it was received by
the Board's Eleventh Regional Office on November 20, 1961.
(c) Employee Jessie J. White, to whom Roberts gave a card, signed it in the
presence of and returned it to Roberts. This card, dated November 8, 1961, bears
a stamp on its back that it was received in the Eleventh Regional Office on Novem-
ber 20, 1961.
On cross-examination, Roberts at first refused to answer a question, eliciting a
conversation between him and a "Mr. Simons," on the ground that "it might in-
criminate" him. Upon inquiry by me Roberts disclosed that the answer did not
subject or tend to subject him to fine or imprisonment. Thereupon I directed him
to answer the question. Roberts then replied, "Then let's put it this way; I don't
remember." I am convinced, accordingly, that the testimony of Roberts is unre-
liable and I credit it only when it is corroborated by documentary evidence.
3. Other evidence relating to the refusal to bargain
It was stipulated by the parties that the Union filed a representation petition (Case
No. 11-RC-1570); that the employer in the representation case is the Respondent
herein; that said petition was filed "on or about November 20, 1961" and Respondent
received notice from the Board's Regional Office of the filing of the petition "on
or about that date"; that notice of hearing on said petition was served on Respondent
"on or about" December 4, 1961; that a hearing was held on said petition on Decem-
ber 11, 1961; that on December 27, 1961, the charge in Case No. 11-CA-1875
(involving Section 8(a)(1) violations) was filed, and thereafter on February 12,
1962, the charge in Case No. 11-CA-1896 (involving 8(a)(1) and (5) violations)
was filed; that on March 20, 1962, a request was made to withdraw the petition; and
that on March 21, 1962, an order issued granting such request to withdraw. Evi-
dence introduced by the General Counsel discloses that the unit in Case No.
I 1-RC-1570 coincides with that herein.
Concluding Findings as to the Refusal to Bargain
Patently a request to bargain in an appropriate unit was mailed on November 20,
1961, this was received "in due course," and Respondent did not reply thereto.
While the evidence fails to disclose the date of receipt, it is reasonable to infer, and
I find, that such request was delivered to Respondent probably not later than
November 22, 1961. I find that on November 22 the Union represented 34, which
is a majority of employees in the appropriate unit consisting of 62 employees. This
majority is determined as follows:
(a) Eighteen valid authorization cards described under (1) above, which I find
were obtained on the respective dates appearing on them, that is, November 7 to
13, 1861.
-(b) Eight valid authorization cards described under (2) above, which I find were
obtained on November 21, 1961 (the ninth card, which I find was obtained on
November 25, is excluded from computing the majority).
(c) Six valid but undated authorization cards described in (3) above, which I
find had been obtained on or before November 20, the date when they were received
by the Regional Office.
REA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 1773
(d) Two valid authorization cards (those of employees Grainger and White)
described in (4) above, which I find were obtained on or before November 20, the
date when they were received by the Regional Office. I further find that employee
Daughtry's card may not be used in ascertaining a majority, because the evidence
does not establish the date when Daughtry signed or delivered it, and because the
Regional Office stamp thereon is dated November 30, 1961.
d further find that the appropriate unit is that stipulated to by the parties and set
forth above. Such stipulation does not contravene statutory provisions or Board pol-
icy, and hence will be accepted by the Board. Stanley Aviation Corporation, 114
NLRB 178; Norris-Thermador Corporation, 1,19 NLRB 1301, 1302. In my opinion,
the stipulation rejected as invalid in Shoreline Enterprises of America, Inc. v.
N.L.R.B., 262 F. 2d 933 (C.A. 5), is distinguishable.
It follows, and I find, that since November 22, 1961, Respondent has refused
and continues to refuse to bargain collectively with the Union as the representatives
of his employees which has been designated by a majority in a unit appropriate for
such purposes. Certain defenses advanced by Respondent, hereinafter stated, do
not exonerate such conduct.
Thus, the filing of a representation petition and holding a hearing thereon will not
serve to defeat a contemporaneous companion complaint case based upon a refusal
to bargain. In my opinion, a labor organization may concurrently resort to a rep-
resentation proceeding and pursue a Section 8(a)(5) complaint so long as it aban-
dons one of the proceedings prior to the holding of an election in the representation
case. Louis Aiello, et al., Co-Partners d/b/a Aiello Dairy Farms, 110 NLRB 1365,
1369, does not require such relinquishment to be made prior to the holding of an
election. Since the Union withdrew its petition before an election was conducted
thereon, it is not now estopped from seeking relief on its charge which prompted
the instant complaint. Galloway Manufacturing Corporation, 136 NLRB 405.
Nor can Respondent successfully contend that it entertained a good-faith doubt of
the Union's majority and was entitled to an election to prove that majority. In the
first place, Respondent at no time informed the Union of this doubt or demanded
an election; in fact as the parties have stipulated, Respondent failed to acknowledge
or reply to the Union's demand. Moreover, no evidence of good-faith doubt was
offered by Respondent at the hearing. Accordingly, such cases as Emma Gilbert,
et al., individually and as Co-Partners d/b/a A. L. Gilbert Company, 110 NLRB
2067, 2069-2071; and Summit Mining Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 260 F. 2d 894,
;898-900 (C A. 3), do not require a different result In my opinion, the instant
case is stronger than Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 185 F. 2d 732, 741 (C.A.D.C.),
where the employer at least asserted a doubt as to majority although he was found
not to have made it in good faith; it is distinguishable from Orkin Exterminating
Company of Kansas, Inc., 136 NLRB 63. It is controlled by Fred Snow, et al.,
d/b/a Snow & Sons, 434 NLRB 709.
Nor is it a defense that the Union's petition alleges that the Union's showing of
interest is based on 30 percent or more of the employees belonging to the Union.
Under the Board's practice this 30 percent is a minimum which must be met; hence
it does not do any more than establish that the Board' s minimum requirements have
been met. It is not evidence that the petitioner does not have more than 30 percent
of the employees in the unit.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
On or about December 5, 1961, W. H. McWhirter, Respondent's project manager
and a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, sent a letter with
an attached circular to his employees. A copy of said letter, as well as a copy of
the circular, entitled "Information For Employees," are attached hereto as Appendix
B and Appendix C, respectively.
Among other things, this letter contained the statement that ".. . we have
several more months of regular continuous work available for those persons who
are interested in doing a day's work for a day's pay. We cannot see any way that
this union interference in the affairs of this job can bring any benefits to the work-
men involved. Quite the contrary, we can see where these activities may be harmful
to you and your fellow workers. We certainly hope you will . . . report to
management any improper activities that might be taking place on the job during
working hours."
In the circular attached to said letter McWhirter sought to influence employees
against the Union by asking certain questions and answering them. These are set
out ad verbum in Appendix C.
1774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On or about December 5, 1961 , Respondent posted a notice entitled "TO ALL
EMPLOYEES" at its Wilmington and Castle Hayne jobsites . A copy of this is
attached hereto as Appendix D.
CONCLUDING FINDINGS AS TO INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, AND COERCION
While Section 8 ( c) guarantees the right to express hostile opinions concerning
unions, it neither confers the right to utter coercive statements nor immunizes
utterances which transcend the boundaries of free speech . Tested by these criteria,
I am of the opinion , and find , that parts of the letter of December 5, and its accom-
panying circular , and the notice are coercive in the context of the Respondent's
whole course of conduct including the items set out below and exceed permissible
limits set by Section 8(c). These are:
(1) As to the letter, the words quoted above. These words convey the impression
that union activities may be harmful to employees ,' and impliedly invite employees
to report union activities to the Respondent.
(2) As to the circular captioned "Information For Employees ." Question 8 and
the answer thereto remind employees that they would have fewer job opportunities
with other "local contractors" if the Union won the election . Question 9 and its
answer warn employees that Respondent would provide other employers with a list
to be discriminated against by publishing the "names and addresses [ of employees
eligible to vote ] in public announcements in the local newspaper ." Question 10
and the response thereto urge employees to get "the Union to withdraw" the RC
petition from the Board.
'(3) As to the posted notice . This notice, in relevant part, condemns adherence
to the Union by Respondent 's assertion that in the latter's view it would work to the
serious harm of the employees if the Union were to come into Respondent's con-
struction project . See White Oak Acres , Inc., 134 NLRB 1145 (IR).
(4) The failure of Respondent to explain its intent in issuing the communications
is significant.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since the evidence
demonstrates that Respondent has interfered with its employees in the enjoyment
of their Section 7 rights, it will be recommended that an order be entered to assure
noninterference with those rights by like or related acts.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is, and during all times material herein was, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Respondent is engaged in, and during all times material herein was engaged in,
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. All journeymen carpenters and carpenter helpers, carpenter welders, and
working carpenter foremen employed by the Respondent on the Ideal Cement Com-
pany project at Wilmington and Castle Hayne, North Carolina, exclusive of other
building trade craftsmen , engineers , draftsmen , and nonworking foremen, general
foremen, clerical and professional employees, watchmen , guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act, as amended , constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Sections 8(a) (5) and 9 of the Act.
4. The Union was on November 22, 1961 , and at all material times thereafter,
the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit
for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sections 8 ( a)(5) and 9
of the Act.
1 Motec Indu8trie8 , Inc, 136 NLRB 711, is distinguishable.
REA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 1775
5. By sending a letter to employees containing a statement that union activities.
might be harmful to the employees, by threatening employees that they would have
less job opportunities if the Union won the election, by threatening employees that,
it would publish the names of all eligible voters in a Board election so as to provide
other employers with a list of employees to be discriminated against in the hiring
of employees, by soliciting employees to abandon the Union and to cause the Union
to withdraw a representative petition, and by posting a notice that Respondent
believed that if the Union were to come to the project it would work serious harm to
the employees, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union on and since November 22„
1961, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon•
the entire record in this case, it is recommended that the Respondent, Rea Construc-
tion Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative-
of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
(b) Sending letters to employees to the effect that union activities might be
harmful to them, threatening employees that they would have less opportunities if
the Union won the election, threatening to publish names of employees voting in a
Board election so as to provide other employers with a list of employees to be dis-
criminated against in hiring of employees, soliciting employees to abandon the Union•
,and to cause the Union to withdraw its representation petition, or posting notices
that Respondent believed if the Union were to come to the project it would work
to the serious harm of the employees.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist Local 1165, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all of such activities except to the extent that
such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor or-
ganization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 1165 as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and, if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its construction sites at Wilmington and Castle Hayne, North Carolina,
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix E." 2 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, shall, upon being
signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspic-
uous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith .3
It is further recommended that the Board issue an order requiring the Respondent
to take the action aforesaid.
2 If these recommendations are adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, these shall be further amended by substituting the words "Pursuant to
a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order "
3In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
1776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOVEMBER 17, 1961.
RAYMOND JONES , President,
Rea Const. Co. Inc.,
General Contractor,
209 W. 4th Street,
Charlotte, North Carolina
DEAR Sm: Carpenters Local Union #1165 of Wilmington, North Carolina rep-
resents a vast majority of the journeymen carpenters and carpenters helpers, carpenter
welders, and working foremen employed by the Company on the Ideal Cement Co.
jobs at Castlehayne and Wilmington, N.C.
We request a meeting at your earliest convenience for purpose of collective
bargaining.
Sincerely yours,
REB: be
ROBERT E. BROWN,
N.C. Coastal Plains District Council Representative,
128 North Davie Street, Greensboro, N.C.
APPENDIX B
REA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Address Reply To:
P. O. Box 1136
Wilmington, N. C.
December 5, 1961
DEAR Sm : As you already know, Carpenters Local Union No. 1165 of Wilmington
is attempting to organize the carpentry trade on this project . You may have already
been asked to sign a card authorizing them to represent you as bargaining agent or
you may have been asked to join the union. It is our firm belief that this Local
union is not interested in the welfare of our employees as much as they are interested
in obtaining initiation fees, dues, and special assessments.
We know for a fact that the wages and working conditions on our project are
equal to or better than the wages and working conditions to be found on other jobs
in and around Wilmington . Furthermore , we have several more months of regular
continuous work available for those persons who are interested in doing a day's
work for a day's pay . We cannot see any way that this union interference in the
affairs of this job can bring any benefits to the workmen involved . Quite to the con-
trary, we can see where these activities may be harmful to you and your fellow
workers.
We certainly hope that you will make every effort to discourage this union organ-
izing and to report to management any improper activities that might be taking
place on the job during working hours . You will probably find some men who are
easily persuaded into paying union initiation fees and dues based on false promises
made by the union organizers. You should suggest to these men that before they
part with their money that they should investigate the history of Local 1165. These
same men probably do not know that none of the Contractors in the Wilmington
area have anything to do with this Local and that many of the carpenters in the
area who formerly belonged to this Local union can furnish many surprising details
concerning the union 's steady decline in the last several years.
We have always treated our employees fairly, and are ready to discuss personally
any matter with each and every person on our payroll. You can do this at any
and all times without being compelled to pay initiation fees, dues, special assessments
and the like. We suggest you talk with informed level headed workmen and citizens
of Wilmington and learn your self and the true facts about the history of Local 1165.
Very truly yours,
WHM/mc
REA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
By W. H. MCWHIRTER, Project Manager.
APPENDIX C
INFORMATION FOR EMPLOYEES
We will attempt to answer some of the many questions that are being raised by
our employees as a result of the Union's current campaign for a Labor Board
Election . This information is factual and will keep the record straight . If you have
any more questions that are not covered here , please feel free to bring them to the
attention of the Project Manager.
REA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 1777
QUESTION
1. Is the Union well established in the
Wilmington area?
ANSWER
NO-the Union has been inactive here
for many years.
2. Does the Union bargain for work-
men employed by the contractors who
are located in the Wilmington area?
3. How then will the Union be able to
guarantee me a job around Wilming-
ton when this Cement Plant work is
finished in a few months?
4. Then, what benefits can a person
expect to receive in exchange for Union
dues, initiation fees and special assess-
ments?
5. If the Union should win a Labor
Board election, will the Company agree
to the wage increases and other benefits
promised by the Union?
6. If the Union calls a strike to try and
force the Company to agree to its de-
mands, can the Company hire new men
to replace the strikers?
7. Would the Company have any trou-
ble finding replacements?
8. If the Union should win an election,
how would the local contractors feel
about hiring men who worked on this
project?
9. Is there any way these local con-
tractors can find out the names of the
men who vote in an election?
10. Is there anyway to stop an elec-
tion from being conducted?
NO-none of the contractors located
in the Wilmington area have anything
to do with the Union.
THE UNION CANNOT GUARAN-
TEE YOU A JOB IN THIS AREA
SINCE IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY
AGREEMENTS WITH ANY CON-
TRACTORS.
NONE.
NO-under the Federal and State laws
the Company does not have to agree
to any of the Union's promises.
YES-the Company can and will re-
place such strikers. All replacements
have the full protection of the Federal
and State laws.
NO-there are many workmen in this
area who need jobs and would like to
have the higher wages, overtime and
safe conditions that are enjoyed on this
project.
IT IS DOUBTFUL that the local con-
tractors would want to expose them-
selves to Union trouble by hiring any
of these men.
YES-it is simple to get such informa-
tion since this would be a matter of
public record. In fact, the Company
would notify employees of their eli-
gibility to vote by listing their names
and addresses in public announcements
in the local newspaper.
YES-by getting the Union to with-
draw its request from the Labor Board.
APPENDIX D
To ALL EMPLOYEES
Since the Union has started up a campaign here, some of you have been asking
questions in regard to the following matters. We have decided to state the Com-
pany's position on these subjects as clearly as we can for everybody alike:-
(1) In the first place, it is our definite view that if the Union were to get into
this Project, it would work to your serious harm. It is our positive intention
to oppose the Union and by every proper means to prevent it from coming in
here.
649856-63-vol. 187--118
1778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(2) In the meantime we would like to make it clear that it is not necessary,
and it is not ever going to be necessary, for anybody to belong to any Union, in
order to work for this Company.
(3) Those who might join or belong to the Union are not going to get any
advantages or any preferred treatment of any sort over those who do not join
or belong to any Union.
(4) Whoever is caused trouble on this Project, or put under pressure by
other employees to join the Union, should let the Company know and we will
see to it that this is stopped.
(5) No person will be allowed to carry on Union organizing activities on
the project during working hours. Anybody who does so and thereby interferes
with his own work or the work of others will be discharged.
Anybody who tells you anything contrary to the foregoing is not telling you the
truth.
REA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
APPENDIX E
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1165, AFL-CIO, as the representative
of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such an understanding in a signed
agreement.
The bargaining unit is:
All journeymen carpenters and carpenter helpers, carpenter welders, and
working carpenter foremen employed by us on the Ideal Cement Company
project at Wilmington and Castle Hayne, North Carolina, exclusive of
other building trade craftsmen, engineers, draftsmen and nonworking
foremen, general foremen, clerical and professional employees, watchmen,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT post notices that we believe that if said Local 1165 were to
come to the project it would work serious harm to our employees.
WE WILL NOT make statements to the effect that union activities might be
harmful to our employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that they will have less job oppor-
tunities if said Local 1165 wins an election conducted by said Board.
WE WILL NOT threaten to publish the names of all eligible voters in an election
conducted by said Board so as to provide other employers with a list of em-
ployees to be discriminated against in the hiring of employees.
WE WILL NOT solicit employees to abandon said Local 1165 and to cause
said Union to withdraw any petition for an election by said Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations , to join or assist said Local 1165 or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to
engage in- concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming
or remaining , members in good standing of said Local 1165 or any other labor
organization.
REA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) ( Title)
This notice must remain vosted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1831
Nissen Building, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Telephone Number 724-8356,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance, with its provisions.