Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union No. 426

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 6, 1974

214 N.L.R.B. 715 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

REINFORCING IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 426
Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union No. 426, Inter-
national Association of Bridge , Structural and Or-
namental Ironworkers , AFL-CIO and The Morri-
son Company and Local 1191 , Laborers ' Interna-
tional Union of North America , AFL-CIO. Case
7-CD-287
November 6, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On July 22, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Charles W. Schneider issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party
filed a brief in opposition to Respondent's excep-
tions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent , Reinforcing Ironworkers
Local Union No. 426, International Association of
Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers,
AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in said recommended
Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CHARLES W. SCHNEIDER, Administrative Law Judge: On
October 17, 1973, The Morrison Company (the Charging
Party), filed an unfair labor practice charge against Rein-
forcing Ironworkers, Local Union No 426, International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron-
workers, AFL-CIO (the Respondent), alleging that the Re-
spondent committed violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151, et seq.
On March 26, 1974, the Regional Director issued a com-
715
plaint and notice of hearing upon the charge. The Respon-
dent thereafter filed an answer and amended answer deny-
ing the commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me at De-
troit, Michigan, on June 10, 1974. The General Counsel,
the Charging Party, the Respondent, and Markward &
Karafilis-Blount Brothers (sometimes referred to herein as
the Intervenor), appeared, were represented by counsel,
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to intro-
duce material evidence, to present oral argument, and to
file briefs. Briefs were received from the Intervenor on July
8, 1974, from the Charging Party on July 9, 1974, and from
the Respondent on July 10, 1974. A letter correcting the
brief was received from the Respondent on July 12, 1974.
Upon consideration of the entire record I make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
The Morrison Company, the Charging Party, is a Michi-
gan corporation engaged as a contractor in the business of
road construction and other related construction work with
its principal office at 19366 Allen Road , Trenton, Michi-
gan.
At all times material herein , the Charging Party has been
engaged, pursuant to a subcontract with Markward &
Karafilis-Blount Brothers , the Intervenor and general con-
tractor on the U.S. Post Office Bulk Handling Facility Job-
site , Allen Park , Michigan , in the installation of reinforced
concrete roads, driveways , and parking areas (including
the work of unloading reinforcing wire mesh and supports,
placing said mesh and supports adjacent to concrete pour-
ing forms , and placing and fitting said mesh and supports
into concrete pouring forms ) at that jobsite.
During the fiscal year ending February 28, 1973, which
period is representative of its operations during all times
material hereto, the Charging Party, in the course and con-
duct of its business operations , had a gross revenue in ex-
cess of $1 million and also during this same period pur-
chased and caused to be transported and delivered at its
Allen Park, Michigan , jobsite goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000, of which goods and materials valued
in excess of $50 ,000 were transported and delivered to its
Allen Park , Michigan, jobsite directly from points located
outside the State of Michigan.
The Charging Party is now , and has been at all times
material herein , an employer and/or person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the
meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Respondent Ironworkers and Local 1191 Laborers' In-
ternational Union of North America, AFL-CIO, herein
called Laborers ' Local 1191, are and have been at all times
material herein labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
214 NLRB No. 114
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issue
The issue is whether Henry Cooper, an international or-
ganizer, and an admitted agent of the Respondent, made
certain statements at a meeting on September 10, 1973,
and, if so, whether those statements constituted threats
against Morrison, the Charging Party, violative of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act.
B. Background: The Autolite Project
In June 1970, Morrison contracted to install a reinforced
concrete parking lot for the Autolite Division of Ford Mo-
tor Company in Wayne County, Michigan. Morrison sub-
contracted a portion of the work to Century Cement Com-
pany, including the installation of reinforced wire mesh in
the concrete. For a number of years, Morrison and Centu-
ry have had collective-bargaining agreements with Labor-
ers' Local 1191. Neither Century nor Morrison has a con-
tract with the Respondent. In accordance with the con-
tracts in existence at that time the work of installing the
wire mesh in the concrete on the Autolite project was as-
signed to Laborers' Local 1191.
Thereafter the Respondent made a claim on Morrison
on behalf of its members for the installation of the wire
mesh on the Autolite project. When the Respondent's de-
mands were not granted it set up a picket line at the project
as a consequence of which work ceased on the project.
Morrison then filed an 8(b)(4)(D) charge against the Re-
spondent upon which, in accordance with the provisions of
Section 10(k) of the Act, the Board held a hearing to de-
termine who was entitled to the work.I On March 22, 1971,
the Board issued its Decision and Determination of Dis-
pute, in which it concluded that the employees of Morrison
and/or Century who were represented by the Laborers,
rather than workers represented by the Respondent, were
entitled to the work in dispute.2
C. 1973. The Allen Park Project
Markward & Karafilis-Blount is a joint venture , consist-
ing of two construction companies : Markward & Karafilis,
which is a member of the Detroit chapter of the Associated
General Contractors of America (AGC), and Blount
i Sec 10(k) provides as follows
(k) Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair
labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4)(D) of section 8(b),
the Board is empowered and directed to hear and determine the dispute
out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen, unless, within
ten days after notice that such charge has been filed, the parties to such
dispute submit to the Board satisfactory evidence that they have adjust-
ed, or agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of, the dis-
pute Upon compliance by the parties to the dispute with the decision
of the Board or upon such voluntary adjustment of the dispute, such
charge shall be dismissed
2 Reinforced Iron Workers Local No 426 (The Morrison Company), 189
NLRB 187 (1971) The recital of facts given above with respect to the Auto-
lite project is from the Board's Decision and Determination in that case
Brothers , an Alabama concern . The venture is the general
contractor for the United States Post Office Bulk Handling
Facility at Allen Park , Michigan . It is this project which is
involved in the instant controversy.
By virtue of its membership in AGC, Markward &
Karafilis is a party to a collective -bargaining contract with
the Respondent which , according to the Respondent, cov-
ers the type of work here in dispute. In addition , according
to the Respondent , that contract contains a clause binding
Markward & Karafilis not to subcontract that type of work
to any contractor who does not have a collective -bargain-
ing agreement with the Respondent.3
The record does not reveal whether Blount Brothers has
any collective -bargaining agreements with labor organiza-
tions.
D. The May 30, 1973, Prejob Conference
On May 30, 1973, a prejob conference was held to
discuss and explain the Allen Park project, identify sub-
contractors, and discuss plans and conditions and the as-
signment of work. This meeting was attended by represen-
tatives of Markward & Karafilis-Blount and by represen-
tatives of the various trade unions involved in the project.
Among those present were representatives of the Respon-
dent and of Laborers' Local 1191. The Respondent's repre-
sentative was Richard Wheeler, business agent. The min-
utes of this meeting, prepared by Francis O'Neil,' labor
relations manager for Blount Brothers, and O'Neil's testi-
mony, indicate that, among other claims, both the Respon-
dent and Laborers' Local 1191 asserted jurisdiction over
the installation of the reinforcing wire mesh in the parking
area. In response to inquiries as to what disposition the
contractor would make of the conflicting claims concern-
ing the parking area, O'Neil gave no definite response, say-
ing merely that no subcontractors had as yet been desig-
nated for that portion of the job.
E. The September 10, 1973, Prejob Conference
On September 10, 1973, another prejob conference was
held concerning the Allen Park project. This meeting, like
that of May 30, was attended by representatives of the
interested trade unions, among them the Respondent and
Laborers' Local 1191, and by representatives of the joint
venture and the Detroit Chapter of the Associated General
Contractors. Also present was Gordon Morrison, president
of The Morrison Company. The Respondent had three
representatives at this meeting: Business Agents Wheeler
and Joe Lauwers, Jr, and Henry Cooper, an international
organizer for the Ironworkers Union.
At this meeting representatives of the joint venture an-
nounced that the contract for the parking areas had been
awarded to Morrison. Both Laborers' Local 1191 and the
Respondent stated their claims to the reinforcing mesh
work in the parking area. Gordon Morrison responded that
Morrison had assigned that work to Laborers' Local 1191,
pursuant to Morrison's past practice and the collective-bar-
3 The contract was not offered in evidence at the hearing before me
4 Incorrectly spelled O'Neal in the transcript
REINFORCING IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 426
gaining agreement which Morrison had with Laborers' Lo-
cal 1191.
Representatives of both the Laborers and of the Respon-
dent are alleged to have made threats to Morrison at the
meeting concerning assignment of the disputed work. It is
the alleged threats by the Respondent 's representative,
Henry Cooper, which are the subject of the present com-
plaint . That issue is resolved at a later point.
On October 17, 1973, over a month after the September
10 meeting , and several days after Morrison had received a
letter from Laborers' Local 1191 stating that if the disputed
work was not assigned to Local 1191 the job would be shut
down , Morrison filed charges of violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D ) against both unions. It is the charge against the
Respondent which is the subject of the present proceeding.
F. The Second 10(k) Determination
As a consequence of the new unfair labor practice
charges, another 10(k) hearing was held by the Board on
December 18, 1973, to determine who was entitled to the
work in question. On February 28, 1974, the Board issued
its Decision and Determination of Dispute in which it de-
termined that Laborers' Local 1191, rather than the Re-
spondent, was entitled to such work at the Allen Park pro-
ject and at other locations within the geographic jurisdic-
tion of the Respondent.'
On March 12, 1974, the Respondent submitted a letter to
the Board's Regional Director stating that it would not
comply with the Decision of the Board in the 10(k) case, on
the ground that the Respondent has not violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, and that the Board therefore had no
jurisdiction.
On March 26, 1974, the Regional Director issued the
instant complaint and the Respondent filed its answer and
amended answer denying the allegations of unfair labor
practices.
G. The Alleged Threat
The assertion in the complaint is that at the September
10, 1973, prejob conference, International Organizer Henry
Cooper "threatened the Charging Party with unspecified
reprisals and `trouble' if the work referred to . . was not
assigned to the Respondent." The Respondent denies this
allegation. The evidence is as follows.
The General Counsel presented three witnesses in sup-
port of the complaint: Gordon Morrison, president of the
Charging Party, James Gray, construction manager of
Blount Brothers, and Francis O'Neil, previously identified
as labor relations manager of Blount Brothers. The Re-
spondent presented two witnesses: Clay Langston, Jr., as-
sistant director of labor relations, Detroit Chapter, Associ-
ated General Contractors of America, and Business Agent
5 Local 1191, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO
(The Morrison Company), 209 NLRB 310 (1974) The specific work awarded
to Laborers' Local 1191 by the Board was
unloading reinforcing wire mesh and supports, placing said mesh
and support adjacent to concrete pouring forms, and placing and fit-
ting said mesh and supports into concrete pouring forms
717
Richard L. Wheeler. All had been present at the September
10, 1973, meeting.
Certain occurrences at the September 10 meeting are not
disputed. Thus, after representatives of the joint venture
confirmed that the parking lot work had been awarded to
Morrison, Business Agent Wheeler protested that that was
a violation of the Respondent's contract with the AGC.
Discussion ensued regarding the conflicting jurisdictional
claims of the Respondent and Laborers' Local 1191. It was
suggested that the matter be submitted to the National
Joint Board for the Determination of Jurisdictional Dis-
putes for disposition. However Gordon Morrison, citing
Morrison's contract with Laborers' Local 1191 as justifica-
tion, declined to agree to accept a decision by the National
Joint Board unless it was in favor of Local 1191.
No action was taken by the Respondent after the Sep-
tember 10, 1973, conference in the nature of interference
with the performance of Morrison's contract on the Allen
Park project. Following the September 10 conference the
Respondent filed a grievance under its AGC contract re-
specting the subcontracting. The record does not disclose
its disposition.
H. The Testimony as to the Threat
The testimony indicates that prejob conferences are of-
ten controversial, and that it is not unusual for threats to
be made in the course of them. This was the first meeting
between Gordon Morrison and Cooper. Cooper was de-
scribed in testimony as a "two fisted sort of guy," "fright-
ening," "threatening"; and his demeanor at the meeting
was variously characterized as "a little hot under the col-
lar," "loud and noisy," and "shouting away "
The gist of the evidence of the General Counsel's wit-
nesses as to Cooper's purported threat is that Cooper said
that if Morrison persisted in its assignment of the disputed
work to Laborers' Local 1191, Morrison would have "trou-
ble," and that that was not a threat, it was a "promise."
Clay Langston, Jr., testifying for the Respondent, could
not recall whether such statements were made by Cooper
or whether they were not. His testimony is therefore not
construable either as a confirmation or as a denial of the
testimony of the witnesses for the General Counsel.
On direct examination Business Agent Wheeler did not
deny that Cooper made the statements attributed to him by
the General Counsel's witnesses. Asked on direct examina-
tion whether he could recall Cooper making a statement to
the effect that if the work was not assigned to the Respon-
dent there would be trouble on the job, and that this was
not a threat but a promise, Wheeler responded, "Not like
that, no." 6
6 The testimony reads
Q Now, you heard, Mr Wheeler, several witnesses testify to the
effect that Mr Cooper made a statement that during the course of the
meeting on September 10, that if this work on the parking lot, on the
access roads was not assigned to Local 426, that there would be trouble
on the job and then he was supposed to have said that, in response to
a question that that was not a-threat but a promise or something to
that effect Do you recall him making any such statement'?
A Not like that, no
718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wheeler further testified on direct examination that
Cooper made no "threats." 7
That testimony is also not construable as a denial that
Cooper made the statements attributed to him by witnesses
for the General Counsel. However, under searching cross-
examination by the Charging Party and the Intervenor, ap-
parently designed to secure admissions from Wheeler that
Gordon Morrison asked Cooper whether Cooper' s state-
ment was a threat, and that Cooper in fact made "threats,"
Wheeler ultimately testified , after repeated initial qualifica-
tion,8 that Morrison did not ask the question , and repeated
his conclusion that Cooper made no threats.9
After careful analysis of his testimony, I have concluded
that Wheeler's ultimate denials were substantially Pavloni-
an responses to repeated hostile interrogation on the same
7 The testimony reads
Q (by Mr Klein ) Did Mr Cooper say anything else that you recall
Mr Wheeler9
A I don't remember Henry making any threats to there being prob-
lems on thatjob as far as the awarding of the work going to Local 1191
or anybody else because I know one thing about Henry, he couldn't
deliver that-that's the thing, that Henry couldn 't deliver if there was a
threat but there was no threat
8 Thus "In that particular way, no "
I say no because I can't recall and I know Henry to be a little bit
smarter than that
• • • •
I would say no because of the commotion or the climate that goes on in
one of these meetings These meetings are not like this trial
to the best of my recollection , I did not hear Mr Morrison ask that
question or Henry answer in that particular way or any way
•
I don't think I would have paid attention to it because I can imagine
there was all kinds of things that might have went on
9 He further testified
Q You have testified that it did not happen and you were there
A I was there.
Q And it did not happen9
A Yes, sir
Q And that is your testimony?
A Yes, sir
Q Okay
Q But you were able to listen to Mr Cooper and Mr Morrison
enough to testify that at no time were any threats made between the
two of them?
A I would say that, yes
A. I would say this , if there were threats made on jurisdiction of
my work or the dispute that I had with the Markward Karafilis people,
I would most certainly know that
point , reflective more of a determination to conclude the
examination and to confound the questioner than of fixed
conviction on the issue , and that in these circumstances his
testimony that Cooper made no "threats" is merely his
conclusion or interpretation as to the meaning of what
Cooper said and not as to the fact of what he said.
As to the question of whether Gordon Morrison asked
Cooper if his statement was a threat, the issue is of little
practical significance . Regardless of whether Morrison or
someone else asked the question , indeed regardless of
whether anyone did, the undenied testimony is that Cooper
said in substance , however it be phrased, that his pre-
diction of "trouble" was not merely a threat , it was a prom-
ise.10
Neither International Organizer Cooper nor Re-
spondent's Business Agent Joe Lauwers, Jr., who was
also present at the September 10, 1973 conference , testi-
fied . No explanation is proffered for their nonappearance.
In the light of the issues, the failure of the Respondent to
produce their evidence , or to explain their absence , reflects
adversely on the Respondent 's contentions as to the facts.
While it is true that the contractors did not produce as
witnesses all their representatives who were present at the
conference , the substance of the testimony of the General
Counsel's witnesses as to the specific statements made by
International Organizer Cooper is, as we have seen , largely
undenied. In such circumstances , further testimony in sup-
port of the complaint would merely have been cumulative.
In the Respondent's case , however, I deem the omission
critical. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 190 NLRB
84, 86, footnote 3 (1971); N.L. R.B. v. Monumental Life In-
surance Company, 162 F.2d 340, 343 (C.A. 6, 1947). As a
consequence , upon consideration of all the testimony and
evidence in the record, and upon the basis of my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I credit the testi-
mony of the General Counsel' s witnesses . Arguments of
the Respondent to the effect that those witnesses are not
creditable for various reasons have been considered and
are now rejected.
I therefore find that International Organizer Cooper told
Gordon Morrison, in substance , that if Morrison persisted
in its assignment to Laborers' Local 1191 of the work of
installing wire mesh in the concrete work on the Allen Park
project, rather than to the Respondent, there would be
trouble, and that this was not merely a threat but a prom-
ise. In the light of the Respondent's prior picketing of the
Autolite project in a similar dispute , and the consequent
shutdown of thatjob, I interpret Cooper's statements to be
a threat, as Gordon Morrison construed it, of interference
by the Respondent with Morrison's performance of the Al-
len Park project. It was thus a threat to force Morrison to
assign work to the Respondent' s members rather than to
members of Laborers' local 1191, under circumstances in
which the Respondent was not entitled to insist upon such
an assignment . Such conduct constitutes a violation of Sec-
tion 8 (b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act.
10 Gordon Morrison 's testimony is that he "thinks" that he asked Cooper
the question Gray's testimony is that Morrison , "said are you threatening
me", O'Neil's is that, "Mr Morrison asked him if it was a threat "
After consideration, I credit the testimony of these witnesses on the point,
though I do not deem the issue critical
REINFORCING IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 426
The Respondent contends that, in any event, Cooper's
statements, as related by the General Counsel's witnesses,
are not interpretable as threats-that they were not speci-
fic, did not identify the particular conduct threatened, and
at most are ambiguous-and that in such circumstances it
was incumbent on Gordon Morrison to ask Cooper their
meaning before a conclusion adverse to the Respondent
can be drawn. I do not find that contention sustained.
In the first place, though I do not deem the finding crit-
ical, I have credited the testimony that Cooper was specifi-
cally asked whether his statement that there would be trou-
ble constituted a threat. In the second place, in the light of
the experience on the Autolite project, if Cooper's state-
ment was ambiguous, it was incumbent on the Respondent
to make clear that the "trouble" referred to was not of a
nature affecting Morrison's performance of the Allen Park
job. Contrary to the Respondent, I find that in this state of
facts the burden was not on Gordon Morrison to have
Cooper clarify his meaning, but was on the Respondent to
make clear Cooper's innocent intent, if such existed. In this
respect it is to be noted that there is no evidence from the
Respondent as to how Cooper's statements are to be inter-
preted. In such a circumstance, the Respondent having
produced the quandary, it is its burden to disentangle the
elements and to establish the innocuousness of any of its
conduct which it deems ambiguous.
I do not find it controlling that threats are not unusual at
prejob conferences, though according to the testimony of
witness Gray, fewer materialize than do not. While Gordon
Morrison's experience with these conferences was limited,
and this was his first meeting with the assertedly custom-
arily blunt Cooper, an objective interpretation of Cooper's
words in the light of the background warrants the conclu-
sion that his statements were threats. If, as the Respondent
suggests, Cooper's belligerency impressed Morrison immo-
derately because of Morrison's ignorance of the realities of
the situation, Morrison's reaction was not unreasonable in
the circumstance. Again, if there was fault, it was Cooper's,
and not Gordon Morrison's. If there was misunderstand-
ing, it was of Cooper's, and not Morrison's, making. Pre-
sumably Cooper intended his performance to convey his
position clearly. It is scarcely a defense to complain now
because he succeeded.
Additionally the Respondent contends that Business
Agent Wheeler, and not International Organizer Cooper,
was the spokesman for the Respondent. However, the com-
plaint alleged, and the answer admitted, that Cooper was
an agent of the Respondent. Whether he was or was not
the principal spokesman for the Respondent, his state-
ments are thus attributable to the Respondent.
I do not find significance in Morrison's failure to file an
unfair labor practice charge until it received the written
threat from Laborers' Local 1191-a month or more after
the September 10 occurrence. Viewed in the light most fa-
vorable to the Respondent, this delay would establish no
more than that Gordon Morrison did not regard Cooper's
threat seriously, though I have previously found that he
did. The failure of a person to be deterred by unfair labor
practice conduct, to file an immediate charge protesting it,
or even to understand that he is being subjected to ULPs,
does not make the conduct lawful The employee who is
719
the unknowing object of surveillance of his union activities
by an employer is nevertheless the victim of unfair labor
practices. In any event, Gordon Morrison's opinion as to
whether or not Cooper's conduct at the September 10
meeting constituted a threat designed to force or require
Morrison to assign the disputed work to the Respondent is
not binding on me or the Board, whose conclusion must be
based upon an objective and reasonable interpretation of
Cooper's actions.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed:
ORDER 11
Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union No. 426, Interna-
tional Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental
Ironworkers , AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and represen-
tatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or re-
straining The Morrison Company, or any other persons
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce , where an object thereof is to force or require The
Morrison Company to assign the work of unloading rein-
forcing wire mesh and supports , placing said mesh and
supports adjacent to concrete pouring forms, and placing
and fitting said mesh and supports into concrete pouring
forms , to its members or to employees it represents.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business office and meeting halls copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said
notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, after being duly signed by the Respondent's rep-
resentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to en-
sure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered
by any other material.
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 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.
121n the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 7
signed copies of said notice for posting by The Morrison
Company, if the company is willing, in places where notice
to employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in wnt-
ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain The Morri-
son Company, or any other persons engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an
object thereof is to force or require The Morrison
Company to assign the work of unloading reinforcing
wire mesh and supports, placing said mesh and sup-
ports adjacent to concrete pouring forms, and placing
and fitting said mesh and supports into concrete pour-
ing forms, to our members or to employees we repre-
sent.
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify employees of The Morrison Company
and our members that:
REINFORCING IRONWORKERS
LOCAL UNION No. 426, IN-
TERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND OR-
NAMENTAL IRONWORKERS,
AFL-CIO