Teamsters Local 282

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1978

236 N.L.R.B. 1009 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 282
Local 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica and General Contractors Association of New
York, Inc., on Behalf of all its Members. Case 2-
CD 538
June 16, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO. AND Mt RPItY
On April 4, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Ar-
thur Leff issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and
a supporting brief. and the General Counsel filed.an
answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Local 282, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Elmont, Long Island,
New York, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order.
'Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made bhs the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibiitrs
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wfall Pro,,dtl Iam. 91
NLRB 544 (1950)., enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C A. 3, 19511. We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings,
We note that in sec IIIB. par. I. of his [)ecision the Adminlstratie I.a
Judge incorrectl) stated that the Board's Decision and Determinauin of
Dispute in the O1k) proceeding is reported at 233 NL RB 1078, v hereas the
actual citation is 233 NLRB 521
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARTHUR LEFF, Administrative Law Judge: This case was
heard at New York City on January 9, 1977, pursuant to a
charge filed by the Charging Party (herein called GCA) on
May 11, 1977, and a complaint issued December 14, 1977.1
The complaint alleges in substance, and Respondent in its
answer denies, that Respondent on April 1, 1977, and
thereafter, violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii}(D) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, by engaging in threats,
restraint and coercion of GCA employer-members (includ-
ing, inter alia, Slattery Associates) with an object of forcing
and requiring them to assign the work of delivering, drop-
ping off, picking up, and removing refuse containers at
GCA employer-members' construction sites to employees
who are members of its labor organization rather than to
employees who are members of Teamsters Local 813, or of
any other labor organization, or who are not members of
Respondent.
Upon consideration of the entire record in this proceed-
ing, of the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute
in the 10(k) proceeding. reported at 233 NLRB No. 71, and
of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent,
and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JI RISDICTION
General Contractors Association of New York, Inc.
(GCA). which has its principal place of business in New
York City, is a multiemployer trade association of employ-
ers engaged in the construction industry. During the past
year, the employer-members of GCA purchased materials
valued in excess of $50,000 that were delivered to their
construction sites within the State of New York from
sources outside the State of New York.
Slattery Associates (Slattery), a New York corporation,
with its main office in Queens, New York, and a member
of GCA. is engaged in business in the construction indus-
try. At all times material herein, Slattery was engaged in
providing heavy construction and related services at a sub-
way construction site, herein called the Archer Avenue site,
in Queens, New York. During the past year, Slattery pur-
chased and had delivered to it at the Archer Avenue con-
struction site from sources outside the State of New York
supplies and materials valued in excess of $50,000.
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and it is
found that Slatterv,. G('A, and each of its employer-mem-
bers are engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(1), (2), (6), and
(7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
II THE I ABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
herein called Respondent or Local 282, and Local 813, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs. Ware-
e leansters Local 318. named in the complaint as Parts in Interest. did
not appear at the hearing Nor did it appear at the hearing in the underlying
Sec 10(k) proceeding to which reference will be made below
236 NLRB No. 131
1009
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
housemen and Helpers of America, herein called Local
813, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
[II TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRA( 'ICES
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The employer-members of GCA are signatories to a col-
lective-bargaining agreement with Respondent known as
the "'Heavy Construction and Excavating Contract 1975
1978" that was negotiated and is administered on their be-
half by GCA. That contract covers the terms and condi-
tions of employment of dump truck drivers (among other
driver classifications) who are employed by members of
GCA.2 Dump trucks driven by their own employee-drivers
are normally used by the GCA contractors to haul away
excavated materials from their construction jobsites, and
are also used, at least at times, to haul away construction
debris from the jobsites. The CGCA contractors have also
utilized another procedure for the removal from their con-
struction sites of construction debris, and in certain situa-
tions for the removal of excavated materials as well. Where
the quantity to be removed is small, the GCA contractors
have found it more economical to use refuse containers
rather than dump trucks for such removal purposes. Refuse
containers are large receptacles, about 50 feet long, 8 feet
wide, and 4 to 5 feet in height that are supplied to the
construction contractors by independent carting compa-
nies. The containers are brought by truck-trailers driven by
employees of the carting company to the construction site.
There, they are dropped off and left unattended by the
carting company. When the carting company is notified by
the contractor that a container has been filled, the carting
company dispatches a truck trailer to pick up the filled
container and remove it from the site. The use of dump
trucks is a more economical procedure for the removal of
excavated materials or construction debris where the
amount to be removed is large enough to allow the dump
trucks to be filled at one time without interruption. But
where the trucks cannot be filled in a short span of time,
the use of containers is a less costly removal method. This
is so because containers, unlike dump trucks, can be left
unmanned, and the employer is saved the expense of hav-
ing a driver stand by the truck for a substantial period of
time waiting for the truck to be filled so that it may be
driven away.
The dispute giving rise to this case involves the utiliza-
tion by GCA employer-members of the services of contain-
er carting companies employing drivers not represented by
Respondent to deliver, drop off, pick up, and remove re-
fuse containers at construction sites of GCA employer-
members. The facts, as developed at the hearing before me.
relating to the complaint's allegations that Respondent en-
gaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) are as
follows: 3
2 The emplo)er-members of G( A are also signatories to a separate con-
tract with Respondent. known as the "Ready Mix (oncrete. Sand. Gravel,
Asphalt and Bulk Cement Contract. 1975 1978" that covers the terms and
conditions of emplosment of their drivers who transport those materials.
As noted above, Slattery, a GCA member, was engaged
at times material herein in subway construction work at the
Archer Avenue jobsite in Queens, New York. It had begun
its work on that job in November 1975. Its excavation
work was completed by mid-February 1977, at which time
it began the concrete work on the job. That work resulted
in the development of a great deal of construction debris.
Prior to April 1, 1977, Slattery had used its own dump
trucks, driven by Respondent's members, principally to
haul away excavated materials. However, since the begin-
ning of its work at the Archer Avenue jobsite, it had also
used refuse containers, as well as dump trucks, for the re-
moval of construction debris. The containers were supplied
to Slattery by Swift Sanitation Company ("Swift"), whose
drivers delivered the containers to the jobsite and picked
them up and removed them from the jobsite when filled.
Swift's drivers are represented by and are members of
Teamsters Local 813.
Oip the morning of April 1, 1977, Edward McFarland, a
business agent of Respondent, called on Donald O'Hare,
Slattery's project superintendent at its Archer Avenue sub-
way job. McFarland told O'Hare that Respondent was
going to "shut down" the job if Slattery continued its use
of refuse containers. O'Hare referred McFarland to Wil-
liam F. Hartigan, Slattery's equipment superintendent,
who was in charge of its trucking and related services. Har-
tigan met with McFarland later that morning. McFarland
told Hartigan that if Slattery wanted to continue utilizing
containers instead of dump trucks for removal of excavat-
ed materials or construction debris from the jobsite, it
would have to "man" each of the containers with a "282
man." McFarland threatened to take strike action against
Slattery if Slattery did not discontinue its use of containers
and use its dump trucks exclusively for the removal of its
waste materials, or else arrange to have the containers
"manned" by Respondent's members.
Respondent's threat to strike Slattery if Slattery contin-
ued to use on its job refuse containers that were not man-
ned by Respondent's members was communicated that
same day by Respondent to GCA and broadened in its
scope to extend to all GCA employer-members using con-
tainers on their jobsites. On Friday, April 1, 1977, Robert
Sasso, Respondent's secretary-treasurer, telephoned Theo-
dore King, GCA's assistant general manager, and told him
that on Monday, April 4, Respondent would "shut down,"
not only Slattery, but all GCA contractors having refuse
containers on their jobsites unless they assigned Local 282
members to "man" the containers. Also on April 1, 1977,
John Cody, Respondent's president, had a telephone con-
versation with Howard Mattson, GCA's counsel, on the
same subject. Cody informed Mattson that Respondent
was disputing the use of GCA contractors of refuse con-
tainers on their jobsites that were not delivered to and re-
moved from the construction sites by Respondent's mem-
bers and that were not manned by Respondent's members
while in the jobsites. The work in question, Cody told
Mattson, was "Local 282's work." Cody threatened to
strike all GCA's employer-members having refuse contain-
The findings made below are based on the uncontradicted and credited
testimons of the General Counsel's witnesses. Respondent called no wit-
nesses.
1010
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 282
ers on their jobsites unless they either (1) arranged to have
the containers delivered to and removed from the jobsites
and manned while on the jobsites by Teamsters 282 drivers,
or, alternatively, (2) removed all containers from theirjobsites
and exclusively used dump trucks, driven by Teamsters 282
drivers, for the removal of waste materials.
As noted above, the drivers who transport the ready-
mixed concrete to Slattery's jobsite, although not covered
by the Heavy Construction and Excavating contract, are
represented by Respondent under another contract with
the GCA employer-members. Slattery was heavily involved
in the pouring of concrete at the Archer Avenue jobsite at
the beginning of April 1977. To avoid a stoppage of work
by Respondent's members who were transporting ready-
mixed concrete to that site, Slattery, on Monday, April 4,
1977, terminated the arrangement it previously had with
Swift for container-carting services, and arranged to have
the same container-carting services thereafter performed
for it by another independent carting company, King Con-
tainer Company. King's drivers who deliver, pick up, and
remove its containers are represented by Respondent un-
der another contract. Hartigan testified that following
Slattery's substitution of King for Swift to perform the con-
tainer carting services on its jobsite, he received no further
complaint from any representative of Respondent about
Slattery's use of refuse containers on the jobsite.
The Heavy Construction and Excavating Contract 1975-
1978, provides for a joint labor-management disputes
panel, composed of an equal number of employer and
union representatives, to act as a board of arbitration on
grievances or disputes arising under the contract. It further
provides that if the Panel is unable to reach a decision, the
dispute is to be submitted to an impartial arbitrator for
final and binding resolution. On April 11, 1977, the dispute
relating to the use by GCA contractors of refuse containers
was brought up for consideration at a panel meeting. Re-
spondent at that meeting reiterated the position its repre-
sentatives had earlier expressed, that the delivery, drop off.
pickup, and removal of refuse containers at GCA construc-
tion sites fell within the orbit of Respondent's work juris-
diction under the contract, and had to be performed by
Local 282 drivers, and, further, that where containers, rath-
er than dump trucks, were used for the removal of excava-
tion materials or construction debris, a Local 282 driver
must be assigned to stand by the container while it was
being filled. The employer representatives took issue with
that position, objecting principally to Respondent's de-
mand that Local 282 drivers be required to stand by while
the containers were being filled. No resolution of the dis-
pute was reached at this meeting. There was some uncer-
tainty at that meeting as to whether the GCA contractors
utilizing containers were or were not using the services of
container carting companies that had collective-bargaining
contracts with Respondent. 4 At one point, following a cau-
'Apparently two of the three GCA contractors whose representatives
were on the Panel, Slattery and Horn Construction Company, were then
using the container carting services of King whose employees are repre-
sented by Respondent, while the third. Schiavoni Construction Company
was then using a container carting company under contract with Teamsters
Local 813.
cus of the employer representative, Sasso was asked wheth-
er it would solve the problem if all GCA contractors uti-
lized Local 282 carting companies. Sasso hinted that it
might, but did not commit himself on that question.
On April 15, 1976, a further meeting of Respondent and
GCA representatives was held to discuss the refuse con-
tainer dispute. Both sides remained firm in their respective
positions. During the course of this meeting, Respondent's
president, John Cody, reiterated the threat he had made to
Mattson on April 11 to take stnke action against GCA
contractors who were using containers for the removal of
excavating materials or construction debris if they did not
either discontinue their use of refuse containers on their
jobsites, or, alternatively, assign Local 282 drivers to deliv-
er and pick up the containers and to man them while on
the jobsite. Respondent at this meeting requested that its
dispute with the GCA contractors be arbitrated by an im-
partial arbitrator under the contract. But Respondent's re-
quest to arbitrate was rejected by GCA.
B. The 10(k) Determination of the Dispute
On May 11, 1977, the GCA filed its charge in this case.
Thereafter, a 10(k) proceeding was instituted by the Re-
gional Director. A hearing, in which Respondent partici-
pated, was held in the 10(k) proceeding on July 8 and 25,
and August 23, 1977. On November 16, 1977, the Board
issued its Decision and Determination of Dispute in that
proceeding, reported in 233 NLRB 1078. In its Decision,
the Board found, inter alia., that a "work dispute" existed
"between Teamsters Local 282 and the Union representing
drivers who are employed by the carting companies which
deliver, drop off, pick up, and remove refuse containers
from construction sites." F The Board based its finding that
such a work dispute existed on the uncontradicted testi-
mony in the 10(k) record-testimony that is also present in
this record-that Respondent at the April II and 15 meet-
ings with GCA claimed the right to deliver and remove
containers. In its Decision, the Board rejected Respon-
dent's primary contention that the dispute involved in this
case is not a work jurisdictional one, but rather a contrac-
tual disagreement between itself and GCA that should be
resolved, not by the Board, but pursuant to the arbitration
provisions of Respondent's collective-bargaining agree-
ment with GCA. It found that there was nothing in Re-
spondent's contract with GCA that either prohibited GCA
employer-members from using refuse containers for the re-
moval of excavation materials or that required the man-
ning of refuse containers by Local 282 men. On the merits
of the dispute, the Board "after full consideration of all the
relevant factors involved." concluded that "employee-driv-
ers who are represented by unions having collective-bar-
gaining agreements with carting companies which deliver,
drop off, pick up, and remove refuse containers at con-
struction sites where employer-members of GCA are per-
forming services are entitled to perform the work in dis-
pute." 6 The Board made the following Determination of
The Board stated that, although this bas unclear from the record, "all
carting companies apparently emplos drisers who are represented hs either
Teamsters L ocal 813 or Teamsters Local 282
In reaching that conclusion, the Board relied mainlm "on the speciflc
(' n tin liedJ
1011
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Dispute:
1. Employee-drivers who are represented by unions
having collective-bargaining agreements with carting
companies are entitled to perform the work of deliver-
ing, dropping off, and removing refuse containers at
construction sites where members of the General Con-
tractors Association of New York, Inc. are performing
services.
2. Local 282 . . . is not entitled by means pro-
scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or
require members of [GCAI to assign the disputed work
to employees represented by that labor organization.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute [Local 282] shall notify
the Regional Director of Region 2, in writing, whether
or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the em-
ployer members of GCA, by means proscribed by Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the disputed work
in a manner inconsistent with the above determina-
tion.
C. Respondent's Refusal To Comply
Respondent admitted in its answer to the complaint that
it has failed and refused to comply, and at the hearing
declared its intention not to comply, with the Board's Sec-
tion 10(k) Decision and Determination of Dispute.
D. Concluding Findings
Respondent's defense to the complaint's allegations ba-
sically rests on its contention that no work jurisdictional
dispute within the statutory intent is involved in this case,
and that its conduct under attack in this proceeding must
therefore be found outside the purview of Section
8(b)(4)(D). Respondent argues in substance that this case
does not present a situation of a kind contemplated by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) in which there are two groups of em-
ployees each laying claim to perform certain work tasks;
nor one in which a union is asserting a proprietary right to
have its employees perform given work based on a claim
that its historical jurisdiction has covered that type of
work, an assertion that is necessarily directed to the legiti-
macy of its claim as compared to the historical jurisdic-
tional claim of the opposing union. Rather, according to
Respondent's contention, the only dispute that is here in-
volved, and to which its conduct in question is related, is
one between the GCA employer-members and Respon-
dent, stemming from a claim by Respondent, disputed by
GCA, that Slattery and other GCA employees had improp-
erly transferred bargaining unit work out of the unit by
subcontracting the work of removing excavated materials
from their jobsites to independent container-carting com-
panies, thereby depriving the unit dump truck drivers of
job opportunities to which they were entitled under the
governing collective-bargaining contract. Respondent in-
factors of the preference and past practice of (GCA's members, the industr)
practice, and the economy and efficiency of G(CA members' operations."
factors which the Board found favored the award made by it.
sists that in these circumstances, and particularly in the
absence of any active rival union claim to the work in ques-
tion, the matter in dispute must be viewed as a contractual,
rather than a work jurisdictional dispute, that should have
been left by the Board for resolution under the contract's
arbitration procedures.
For purposes of decision here, there is no need for me to
pass on the validity of Respondent's contention that no
work jurisdictional dispute is involved. Nor is there need to
comment on the accuracy of Respondent's factual predi-
cate for that contention. It is enough to observe that the
same contention was made by Respondent in the 10(k)
proceeding where it was considered and rejected by the
Board. The Board's ruling in that respect is binding on me
in this proceeding. If, as would appear, Respondent wishes
to have the Board's earlier ruling reconsidered, it must
have this done at a higher decisional level than mine.
The Board having determined in the 10(k) proceeding
that Respondent is not entitled by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require employer-
members of GCA to assign the disputed work to employees
represented by it, the only issue that remains to be decided
is whether Respondent engaged in the specific
8(b)(4)(ii)(D) conduct that is alleged in the complaint. The
determination of that issue must be made on the basis of
the record in this proceeding.
As found above, Respondent (1) on April 1, 1977, threat-
ened Slattery with strike action if Slattery, which was then
using the container carting services of a company employ-
ing drivers represented by Teamster Local 813, did not
either discontinue its use of refuse containers or else ar-
range to have such containers manned by Respondent's
members; (2) on the same day threatened to take strike
action, not only against Slattery, but also against other
GCA employer-members having refuse containers on their
construction jobsites unless they either discontinued using
refuse containers for the removal of excavated materials or
construction debris, or, alternatively, assigned the work of
delivering, dropping off, picking up and removing such re-
fuse containers, as well as the manning of the containers
while on the jobsites, to drivers represented by Respon-
dent, and (3) on April 15, 1977, reiterated the aforesaid
strike threat against GCA employer-members. On the un-
disputed evidence in this record, I am satisfied, and find,
that an object of the aforesaid threats (which also consti-
tuted restraint and coercion within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(ii), was to force and require Slattery and other
GCA employer-members using refuse containers for the
removal of excavated materials or construction debris at
their jobsites, to assign the work of delivering, dropping
off, picking up, and removing the refuse containers to em-
ployee-drivers who are members of and/or represented by
Respondent, rather than to have such work performed by
(and thereby in effect assigned to) employees of indepen-
dent carting companies who are members of and/or repre-
sented by Teamsters Local 813, or any other labor organi-
zation, or are not members of Respondent. 7
On the basis of the foregoing, and in light of the Board's
It is not essential for proof of an 8(b)(4}(D) violation that the prohibited
object declared in that section be the only' object of the conduct in question:
it is enough as that section plainly states that it be "an object"
1012
TEAMSTERS LOC(AI. 282
Decision and Determination of Dispute in the 10(k) pro-
ceeding, I conclude and find, that Respondent, by its strike
threats described above, as well as its refusal to comply
with the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute,
violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Slattery Associates, General Contractors Association
of New York, Inc., and each of its employer-members, are
engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Sections 2(1), (2), (6), and (7)
and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
2. Local 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) by
threatening, coercing, and restraining Slattery, GCA, and
employer-members of GCA, with an object of forcing or
requiring them to assign the work of delivering, dropping
off, picking up, and removing refuse containers at their
jobsites to employees who are members of and/or are rep-
resented by Respondent, rather than to employees of cart-
ing companies who are members and/or are represented
by Teamsters Local 813, or any other labor organization.
or who are not members of Respondent.
4. The aforesaid 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 Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that Respondent
be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and that it take
certain affirmative action found necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law.
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER
The Respondent, Local 282, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to comply with the Board's Decision and
Determination of Dispute issued on November 16, 1977.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining persons en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce.
where an object thereof is to force or require employer-
members of General Contractors Association of New
York, Inc., including, inter alia, Slattery Associates, to as-
sign to employees represented by Respondent, rather than
to employee-drivers of container carting companies who
are not represented by Respondent the work of delivering.
dropping off, and removing refuse containers at construc-
tion sites where members of the General Contractors Asso-
ciation of New York, Inc., are performing services.
2. Take the follovsing affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places at its business offices and
meeting halls, including all places where notices to mem-
bers are customarilN posted, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." C('opies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being
duly signed by an authorized representative. shall he post-
ed by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 2 witt
signed copies of such notice for posting by the employers
involved herein, if willing. in places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writ-
ing. within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of ihe National Labor Relations Board. the findings,
conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.49 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
it, lfindings. conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall he
deemed waised for all purposes
In the event that this Order is enforced bh a Judgment of the Ulnited
States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted h, Order
of the National L ahor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United Slates (Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National L.ahor Relations Board"
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Wt WILL. NOT refuse to comply with the Board's De-
termination of Dispute that employee-drivers who are
represented by unions having collective-bargaining
agreements with carting companies are entitled to per-
form the work of delivering, dropping off, and remov-
ing refuse containers at construction sites where mem-
bers of the General Contractors Association of New
York, Inc., are performing services.
WE WILl NOT threaten, coerce or restrain persons en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, where an object thereof is to force or require
any employer-member of General Contractors Associ-
ation of New York, Inc., to assign the above-men-
tioned work to employees represented by us, rather
than to employees of refuse container carting compa-
nies who are represented by Teamsters Local 813, or
any other labor organization, or who are not repre-
sented by us.
LOCAL 282, INTERNATIONAtI BROTHERHOOD Oi TEAM-
STERS, CHAtUFFEURS, WAREHOtSEMEFN 4.ND Hit: PERS
OF AMERICA
1(13