United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 1839

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 1, 1966

160 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO, Local 1839, and its Agent James Cartwright ( Gilbert
Kroeter, d/b/a Kroeter Construction Company ) and Congress
of Independent Unions. Case 14-CC-330. July 1, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 7, 1966, Trial Examiner W. Edwin Youngblood issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent Union filed exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision and the entire record in this case, including the
exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting :
The inducement to the employee which allegedly violated Section
8(b) (4) (i) (B) was the union representative's charge that the em-
ployee had worked behind a picket line contrary to union rules and an
assertion that the Union would probably impose a fine on the employee
for crossing a picket line. The evidence fails to establish that the
picketing continued after the alleged inducement, that the picketing
was being done at the time the employee "crossed" the line, or that the
employee was ever aware of any picketing at such time. Since the
"inducement" was by its terms dependent entirely upon the employee's
1 Contrary to our dissenting colleague , we think it clear that Respondent 's agent intended
to induce , and in fact did induce , Wilmsmeyer not to work at the site involved until the
dispute between the other union and the other employer was resolved regardless of whether
wilwsmeyer observed picketing at the site
160 NLRB No. 3. 1
257-551-67-vol. 160-2
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
violation of a picket line, a circumstance which, so far as this record
shows, did not exist, the inducement was therefore without substance.
Accordingly, I would dismiss the complaint.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case was heard before Trial Examiner W. Edwin Youngblood , at St. Louis,
Missouri, on November 15, 16, and 17, 1965,' pursuant to the issuance of a com-
plaint dated September 15, upon a charge filed August 11 by Congress of Independent
Unions, herein called CIU. ' The complaint alleges that United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local 1839, and its Agent James Cart-
wright , herein called Respondent Carpenters or Respondent Cartwright or collec-
tively as Respondents , violated Section 8(b)(4)(i )(B) of the Act. Respondents'
answer denies the commission of any unfair labor practices . Briefs have been re-
ceived from the General Counsel and the Respondents . Respondents ' motion to
dismiss the complaint , upon which ruling was reserved at the hearing , is disposed of
in accordance with the findings and conclusions herein.
Upon the entire record , including my evaluation of the witnesses based on the
evidence and my observation of their demeanor , I make the following-
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS ENTITIES INVOLVED-THE JURISDICTION ISSUE
The unfair labor practices alleged arise from picketing which occurred at or near
408 South Jefferson Street, Union , Missouri , where a four -unit apartment building
was being constructed by Gilbert Kroeter, d/b/a Kroeter Construction Company,
herein called Kroeter . The operations of Kroeter alone are insufficient to meet the
Board's jurisdictional standards . Kroeter, however , is a member of Eastern Missouri
Contractors Association , herein called the Association . Under applicable Board law,
the Board will assert jurisdiction herein if the operations of the Association meet its
jurisdictional standards.
The parties stipulated that the purchases of materials by certain named contractor
members of the Association , including Charles H. Hasenbeck , Leonard W. Rowden,
and William Graf, from their suppliers , which their suppliers received directly from
outside the State of Missouri, exceeded $50,000 during the 12 -month period com-
mencing October 1, 1964, and ending September 30, 1965. The parties further stipu-
lated that if the purchases of Hasenbeck , Rowden, and Graf are not includable or the
purchases of Graf alone or Hasenbeck and Rowden together are not includable then
the total purchases by members of the Association of materials from suppliers which
the suppliers purchased directly outside the State of Missouri would be valued at less
than $50,000.
Thus the issue is whether the purchases of Graf or Hasenbeck and Rowden are in-
cludable with the purchases of other contractor members of the Association for juris-
dictional purposes . The Board has held that the purchases of an employer are
includable with other Association members' purchases if the employer has manifested
an unequivocal intent to be bound in collective bargaining by group rather than by
individual action . The Board stated in Siemons Mailing Service , 122 NLRB 81, 84
that it would continue its practice "of considering all members of multiemployer as-
sociations who participate in or are bound by multiemployer bargaining negotiations
as single employers for jurisdictional purposes ." The articles of Association and
constitution of the Association provide in article II in part that : The purpose for
which the Association is formed is "to end, if possible , the economic waste caused by
strikes and lockouts, by seeking through the concerted action of members of this
association to abrogate the causes leading up to them and to foster collective action in
investigating and bargaining for material and propositions submitted to members of
the Association ." They provide further in article X that : "The board of *trustees
shall constitute a committee for the purpose of dealing with labor unions and settling
labor disputes between the members and their employees . The trustees shall meet
with the committee of labor unions for the purpose of arriving at agreements cover-
ing uniform practices and standards of hours and wages applicable to the different
types of building and construction employment . The trustees shall also hear all
disputes arising between any member and employee . Any and.all negotiations.,and
1 Unless otherwise Indicated, all dates herein are in 1965
,'R UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, LOCAL 1839 3
agreements between trustees with any labor unions shall be referred to a meeting of
the members of this Association and approved by a majority of the members present
and voting before the same shall be binding on this association and its members."
The Association was organized in April 1962 , and since that time has entered
into three collective-bargaining agreements with the CIU; each agreement being
reached after a number of negotiating meetings between representatives of the Asso-
ciation and the CIU.2
The Association and the CIU signed the current collective -bargaining agreement the
last week of July 1964, effective August 1, 1964. Graf joined the Association on
August 22, 1964, Rowden on July 3, 1965, and Hasenbeck on August 2, 1965. None
of the three has signed the Association contract.
It is clear from the provisions of the articles of Association and constitution of the
Association that Graf, Hasenbeck, and Rowden by joining the Association have
manifested their intent to be bound by collective action rather than individual action.
Marble Polishers, etc., 132 NLRB 844, 845.3 Accordingly, I find that these em-
ployers and the other employer members of the Association are single employers for
jurisdictional purposes , and therefore their operations will be totaled with those of
the other members of the Association in determining jurisdiction.4
As these contractors are engaged in sales directly to the consumer and also in com-
mercial construction work ,5 it is sufficient that either the retail or nonretail jurisdic-
tional standards of the Board are mete Accordingly , since the combined indirect
inflow of members of the Association exceeds $50 ,000 in an appropriate period, I find
that the Association meets the Board 's standards for nonretail enterprises and that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
The Association is an association of persons engaged in the building and construc-
tion industry in the capacity of employers , and exists at least in part for the purpose
of representing its members in the negotiation and execution of collective -bargaining
agreements with labor organizations representing employees of its members .? Accord-
ingly, I find that the Association is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2)
of the Act and the Association and Kroeter are employers engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. In addition , it is clear from
the credited and uncontradicted testimony of Kroeter, Kenneth Wehmueller, and
Arthur Wilmsmeyer that Union Furniture Company was engaged in laying linoleum
tile in the kitchen and bathroom of the apartment building being constructed by
Kroeter. Accordingly, I find that Union Furniture Company is a person engaged in
the building and construction industry ,8 which is an "industry affecting commerce"
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act.9 I also find that Kroeter is a
person within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act.
2 Based on the credited and uncontradicted testimony of C Fred Francis , president of
the Association.
'Earl Gordon, d/b/a Gordon Electric Company , 123 NLRB 862 , relied upon by Respond-
ents, is distinguishable because in that case , unlike the principal case, the Employer in
question had not joined the Association , but had merely signed an area agreement pre-
viously negotiated by an employer association , and the Board held that insufficient to estab-
lish the required intent to be bound by group action in collective bargaining I consider
irrelevant and immaterial such matters referred to in Respondents ' brief as Hasenbeck,
Rowden, and Graf's having joined the Association and the CIU before any of their em-
ployees ; their having paid initial dues and initiation fees for their employees ; and the
allegedly illegal union-security clause in the Association contract with CIU
4 Siemens Mailing Service , supra. In reaching this finding, I do not consider it neces-
sary to rely upon or consider the effect of the testimony of these three employers as to
their purpose in joining the Association . In addition, I note Respondents ' contention that
these three employers have not complied with the Association contract, and the Gen-
eral Counsel ' s contrary contention that they have Assuming , arguendo , that these
employers have not complied with the Association contract , I find and conclude that this
would be Insufficient to negate the unequivocal intent to be bound by , collectlve action
manifested by their joining the Association.
5 Based on the credited and uncontradicted testimony of Gilbert Kroeter and the entire
record. ,
e Man Products, Inc , 128 NLRB 546. -
7 Based on the credited and uncontradicted testimony of C Fred Francis,' president of
the Association and the articles of the Association and constitution of the Association
s Carpet, Linoleum and Soft Tile Local 1247 , Painters Union , (Indio Paint and Rug
Center), 156 NLRB 951.
U Local 20, Sheet Metal Workers International Association ( Bergen Drug Company. Inc ),
132 NLRB 73, 76
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. STATUS OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED AND OF CARTWRIGHT
The pleadings establish, and I find, that Respondent Carpenters and Local Union
No. 35, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe
Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 35,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. It is clear
from the record herein that James Cartwright is a special representative for the
Carpenters District Council with jurisdiction over the Respondent Carpenters herein,
and that Cartwright performs the functions for Respondent Carpenters usually per-
formed by union business agents, and was so engaged in the performance of these
functions by his conduct set forth herein. Accordingly, I find that Cartwright is an
agent of Respondent Carpenters within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.lo
The status of the Charging Party as a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act is also established by the record."
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES INVOLVED
As set forth above, Kroeter was engaged in the construction of a four-unit apart-
ment building at 408 South Jefferson Street, Union, Missouri, which Kroeter started
on April 15 on land which he owned. About mid-May, Kroeter's building project
was picketed by Local 35 The laying of tile which Union Furniture Company,
herein called Union Furniture, was doing for Kroeter pursuant to an oral contract
commenced about August 4.12 Arthur Wilmsmeyer, an employee of Union Furni-
ture Company and a member of Respondent Carpenters, went to the apartment
project about August 4 and started laying tile. Wilmsmeyer testified that there was
no picket line when he went to work that morning about 8 a.m. At noon, Wilms-
meyer left to go home for lunch and there was a picket line there at that time. When
Wilmsmeyer quit work about 4:30 p.m. there was no picket. On August 5,13 Wilms-
meyer saw no picket when he returned to the project to work about 8:15 a.m.
Wilmsmeyer left the project about 10:30 a.m. when he finished with the job in that
unit. Again he saw no picket. Wilmsmeyer had walked to the job and later that
day decided to return to the job in the company truck to get his tools so that he
could work on another project. Wilmsmeyer had just turned off the highway onto
Jefferson Street when Cartwright stopped him. Cartwright told Wilmsmeyer that
he had crossed the picket line. Wilmsmeyer replied that there was no picket when
he went to work that morning. Cartwright said that he would turn Wilmsmeyer in,
and that he probably would be fined. As a result of this conversation, Wilmsmeyer
left his tools there in the building, and returned to the furniture store where he told
his boss about the conversation with Cartwright. Another employee of Union Furni-
ture went to the apartment project and got Wilmsmeyer's tools. Wilmsmeyer did
not return to this job for probably a week, and when he did return he testified that
there was no picket there at any time. Wilmsmeyer was laying tile in stages in this
building; that is, he would work in one apartment and finish it, and then wait until
another apartment was ready, and then lay the tile in that apartment. It is not clear
from the record whether Wilmsmeyer did not return to the apartment project for
awhile because there was no more work for him to do, or because the project was
being picketed.14
Wilmsmeyer ultimately finished the tilework in all four apartments, with about a
week's interval between work in each apartment, and took about a day and a half
on each apartment. Wilmsmeyer testified that he performed this work during the
10 Based on the credited testimony of Cartwright, and Respondents' answer to the
complaint.
11 Based on the credited testimony of Truman Davis, business manager of CIU and the
constitution and bylaws of CIU, and the collective-bargaining agreement between C1U and
the Association.
12 Based on Kroeter's credited testimony.
1a Wilmsmeyer did not recall whether he returned to that job the next day or later.
Cartwright, however, testified he talked to Wilmsmeyer on August 5.
14 Kroeter testified that Wilmsmeyer stopped work on the apartment project on August 5
before the job was finished. Wehmueller's testimony also indicated that Wilmsmeyer's
conversation with Cartwright occurred before Wilmsmeyer finished the job This testi-
mony may have referred to the tilework In all four apartments being unfinished at this
point, or It may have referred to the tilework In the first apartment. Wilmsmeyer, of
course, testified that he had finished In the first apartment, and this testimony is supported
by the fact that he was on his way to pick up his tools when Cartwright stopped him.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, LOCAL 1839 5
day between the hours of about 8:15 and 4:30. Wilmsmeyer was never notified to
appear before the board of the Respondent Carpenters, and was never fined or dis-
ciplined in any way concerning his working on the Kroeter project.15
Kenneth Wehmueller, manager of Union Furniture, testified that he had a conversa-
tion with Cartwright after the incident occurred between Cartwright and Wilmsmeyer.
Wehmueller was in front of the furniture store, and Cartwright came up and
Wehmueller asked him if he wanted to see Wilmsmeyer. They started talking about
Wilmsmeyer, and Cartwright said that Wilmsmeyer should not have crossed the
picket line. Wehmueller said that he did not think there was a picket there when
Wilmsmeyer went to work, and when he came out the picket was there. Cartwright
suggested that Wehmueller should have called to see if there was a picket, and that
the picket should have been there all the time.
Cartwright testified that Respondent Carpenters has a contract with Union Furni-
ture. Cartwright further testified that on the evening of August 4 after working hours
he saw the Union Furniture truck at the jobsite. The next day Cartwright stopped
at the jobsite, and asked the picket (Thomas Quinn) about this, and was informed
that the floor layer had just left, but that he would be back. In a few minutes,
Wilmsmeyer pulled up in his truck, and Cartwright asked Wilmsmeyer if he was doing
the work. When Wilmsmeyer replied that he was, Cartwright asked him if he "was
that damned hungry to work behind the picket line." Wilmsmeyer said that he knew
that Cartwright would not like it. Cartwright then said "What do you think the
other carpenters will think of you working behind the picket line" Wilmsmeyer
replied that "Kenney" (a reference to his boss Kenneth Wehmueller) had told him
to. Cartwright denied that a fine was even mentioned in this conversation. Cart-
wright specifically denied on direct examination that he had any conversation with
Wehmueller in 1965. On cross-examination , Cartwright at first continued to deny
having a conversation with Wehmueller in 1965, then admitted in effect that he did
talk to Wehmueller in 1965, but asserted that this conversation was about union
dues 16 and later on cross-examination specifically denied talking to Wehmueller
about the picket incident.
Thomas Quinn testified that he picketed the apartment project from May 15 to
September 17 during the hours between about 8 to 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. with time
out for lunch. Further that he was present when Cartwright had a conversation
with Wilmsmeyer on August 5. Quinn testified that he believed he heard all the
conversation, According to Quinn, the conversation was as follows: "Jim asked him
if he had gone behind this line and he said he did, and he asked how long you been
there, and at that time he said today, and he said he had more work to finish up,
I believe. A few hours to finish up." Quinn specifically denied anything being said
about a fine.
Wilmsmeyer and Wehmueller were straightforward witnesses who impressed me as
being candid, I was not similarly impressed with the testimony of Cartwright. Nor
was I impressed with Quinn's brief account of the conversation. I credit the testi-
mony of Wilmsmeyer and Wehmueller, and reject the contrary testimony of Cart-
wright and Quinn.
It is clear, and I find, that Cartwright induced Wilmsmeyer not to perform any
work or services on the apartment project while it was being picketed. This would
be true even if Cartwright's version of his conversation with Wilmsmeyer, in which
he denied threatening Wilmsmeyer with a fine, was credited.17 There was no evidence
of any labor dispute involving Union Furniture Company; the only labor dispute
referred to in the record is the one involving Kroeter. I therefore find that Kroeter
is the primary employer herein, and Union Furniture the secondary employer, and
I reject Respondents' contention made in their brief that Union Furniture Company
was the "primary" employer involved. It is clear from the entire record, and I find,
that an object of Cartwright's inducement of Wilmsmeyer was to cause Union Furni-
ture Company to cease doing business with Kroeter Construction Company.
u The foregoing is based on Wilmsmeyer's credited testimony
19 The transcript on page 234 reflects Cartwright's testimony that Wehmueller was
delinquent in his dues. Respondents assert in their brief that this is incorrect, and
should reflect that Wilmsmeyer was delinquent Whether the transcript is correct or not
(Cartwright may have said Wehmueller when he meant to say Wilmsmeyer), I am persuaded
that the reference to dues delinquency related to Wilmsmeyer and not to Wehmueller, the
manager of the store
17 Cf Spokane Building and Trades Council, et al, 89 NLRB 1168, 1171 wherein the
Board found the conduct of union officials to constitute inducement of employees within
the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) in a setting free of threats.
F) DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is well established that inducement need not be successful in order to fall within
the proscription of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. Accordingly, although I agree that
the record does not establish that Wilmsmeyer actually refused to perform any
services 18 because of Cartwright's conduct, I must reject Respondent's contention
that the complaint must be dismissed for that reason. Accordingly, I find that Re-
spondent Carpenters and Respondent Cartwright violated Section 8(b)(4)(1)(B) of
the Act by Cartwright's conduct as set forth above.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent Cartwright and Respondent Carpenters found to be
unfair labor practices in section III, above, occurring in connection with the opera-
tions 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 commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Respondents urge in their brief that even assuming Cartwright's conduct violated
the Act, this is an isolated incident not warranting a cease-and-desist order. There
is no evidence that Cartwright's threat to fine Wilmsmeyer if he crossed the picket
line was ever revoked. In my opinion, Cartwright's threat to fine Wilmsmeyer is
much stronger conduct than the conduct involved in Local 741, United Association
of Journeymen, etc. (Keith Riggs Plumbing and Heating Contractors), 137 NLRB
1125, cited by Respondents in their brief. This is true notwithstanding Respondent
Carpenters' failure to carry out Cartwright's threat Also there is no assurance
Cartwright will not engage in similar conduct in the future. Under all the circum-
stances, I shall reject this contention and will recommend the issuance of a
cease-and-desist order and the posting of an appropriate notice.19 In addition, I shall
recommend that Respondents mail a signed copy of the notice directly to Arthur
Wilmsmeyer. However, since the violation found herein was limited to only one
employee, Arthur Wilmsmeyer, and, involved only one employer, Union Furniture
Company, with an object limited to forcing Union Furniture to cease doing business
with Kroeter, I shall recommend the issuance of a narrow order limited to the violation
and object found.20
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Eastern Missouri Contractors Association is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act and the Association and Kroeter are employers engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Union Furniture
Company is a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act and Union Furniture and Kroeter are persons within
the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) of the Act.
2. Respondent Carpenters, the Charging Party, and Local Union No. 35, United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry
of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Carpenters and Respondent Cartwright by engaging in the conduct
found unlawful herein have engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b) (4) (i) (B) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
recommended that United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
18 Other than Wilmsmeyer ' s refusal to pick up his tools to be used In work on another
project which I consider an insubstantial refusal having no effect on Union Furniture's
performance of its contract with Kroeter.
19 Cf Local Union No . 519, Plumbers ( Center Plumbing and Heating Corp ), 145 NLRP.
215, 224
20 United Association of Journeymen , etc., Local 469 (W. D. Don Thomas Construction
Company), 129 NLRB 36, 37.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, LOCAL 1839 7
CIO, Local 1839, its officers , agents, and representatives and Respondent James
Cartwright, shall: -
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging individuals em-
ployed by Union Furniture Company to engage in strikes or refusals in the course
of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or
work on any goods , articles, materials , or commodities , or to perform any services
where an object is to force or require Union Furniture Company to cease doing
business with Kroeter Construction Company.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in Respondent Carpenters ' business office , meeting
halls, and places where notices to its members are customarily posted , copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 21 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 14, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent Carpenters and by Respondent Cartwright, be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for a period of 60 con-
secutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of the aforesaid notices to the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 14 of the Board for posting by Union Furniture Company, if willing,
at all locations where notices to their employees are customarily posted In addi-
tion, mail a signed copy of the notice directly to Arthur Wilmsmeyer.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of
this Decision, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith.22
21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United
States Court of Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the
words""a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words
"a Decision and Order."
21 In 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 Respondents have taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1839 AND EMPLOYEES OF UNION FURNITURE
COMPANY
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage individuals employed by
Union Furniture Company to engage in strikes or refusals in the course of their
employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work
on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services
where an object is to force or require Union Furniture Company to cease doing
business with Kroeter Construction Company.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO LOCAL 1839,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
JAMES CARTWRIGHT,
Business Agent.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(JAMES CARTWRIGHT) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1040 Boat-
men's Bank Building, 314 North Broadway Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102, Tele-
phone 622-4156.