United Constructors & Goodwin Construction Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 2, 1977

233 N.L.R.B. 904 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Constructors and Goodwin Construction Com-
pany and Five Basic Construction Trades. Case
19-CA-8550
December 2, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND MURPHY
On June 3, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Roger
B. Holmes issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and Respondents
filed a brief in response.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached 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
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in its entirety.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROGER B. HOLMES, Administrative Law Judge: The
original charge in this case was filed on May 6, 1976, by the
Five Basic Construction Trades, herein called the Union.
The amended charge in this case was filed on June 30,
1976, by the Union. The complaint was issued on June 29,
1976, on behalf of the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for Region 19. The General Counsel's
complaint alleges that United Constructors, herein called
Respondent United, and Goodwin Construction Compa-
ny, herein called Respondent Goodwin, have engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
herein called the Act.
Respondent United and Respondent Goodwin filed
separate answers to the complaint and, inter alia, denied
the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices and
raised certain affirmative defenses. The Respondents
correctly assert in their answers to the complaint that the
amended charge was filed and served after the issuance of
the General Counsel's complaint. The original charge
233 NLRB No. 135
alleged the unfair labor practices as a violation of only
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
Nevertheless, the Board has held that an unfair labor
practice charge is not a pleading, but that it merely serves
to initiate an investigation by the General Counsel to
determine whether a complaint should be issued. The
Board has held that it is the function of the General
Counsel's complaint, rather than the unfair labor practice
charge, to serve notice on a respondent of the particular
conduct alleged to be violative of the Act. Texas Industries,
Inc., 139 NLRB 365, 366-367 (1962). In the instant case,
the General Counsel's complaint particularized the con-
duct alleged to be violative of Section 8(aXl1) and (5) of the
Act, and the interval of time between the issuance of the
complaint on June 29, 1976, and the hearing of this case on
February 24, 1977, in Pocatello, Idaho, afforded the
Respondents more than ample notice of the specific
allegations against them.
Both counsel for the General Counsel and the attorney
for the Respondents timely filed briefs by the due date of
March 31, 1977. Those briefs have been read and duly
considered.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and based
upon my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
A. Respondent United
Respondent United has been at all times material herein
a partnership engaged in the general construction business
with an office and place of business located in Blackfoot,
Idaho.
There are seven coequal partners in Respondent United.
They are: Bhueland R. Goodwin, Verl D. Goodwin,
Robert Goodwin, J. C. Goodwin, Russell Goodwin,
Raymond Goodwin, and Evan Goodwin.
During the 12-month period preceding the issuance of
the complaint, Respondent United performed work within
the State of Idaho in the contract amount of approximately
$167,000 for an entity known as the Farmer Grain Co-
operative whose address is in Ogden, Utah. During the
same period of time, Respondent United also performed
work at Soda Springs, Idaho, for Monsanto Industrial
Chemicals Company whose headquarters are located in St.
Louis, Missouri, in the amounts of approximately $19,000
and $284,000.
B. Respondent Goodwin
Respondent Goodwin has been at all times material
herein a partnership engaged in the general construction
business with an office and place of business located in
Blackfoot, Idaho.
There are two coequal partners in Respondent Goodwin.
They are: Bhueland R. Goodwin and Verl D. Goodwin.
During the 12-month period preceding the issuance of
the complaint, Respondent Goodwin performed work
pursuant to a contract in the amount of approximately
$290,000 for the Idaho School District No. 25 of Pocatello,
904
UNITED CONSTRUCTORS AND GOODWIN CONSTRUCTION CO.
Idaho. During the same period of time, Respondent
Goodwin also performed work in the amount of approxi-
mately $2.5 million for Idaho School District No. 55 which
is located in Blackfoot, Idaho. During the same period of
time, Respondent Goodwin also performed work pursuant
to a contract in the amount of approximately $164,000 for
the Idaho State Department of Highways which is located
in Boise, Idaho.
Although the work performed by Respondent Goodwin
was for certain school districts of the State of Idaho and for
the Department of Highways of the State of Idaho, counsel
for the General Counsel persuasively points to the Board's
Decision in Carroll-Naslund Disposal, Inc., 152 NLRB 861
(1965), wherein the Board reiterated one of its holdings in
the landmark case, Siemnons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81,
85, fn. 12 (1958), as follows:
We will also continue our past practice of treating
sales of goods or services to enterprises or organizations
which are themselves exempted from the Board's
jurisdiction as indirect outflow, where such enterprises'
or organizations' operations are of the magnitude
necessary for assertion of jurisdiction over comparable
nonexempt organizations.
C. Conclusion
In view of all of the foregoing, I find that both
Respondent United and Respondent Goodwin separately
meet the Board's indirect outflow jurisdictional standards
and that both partnerships have been at all times material
herein employers engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It was admitted that the Union has been at all times
material herein a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act, and I so find.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The principal issues raised by the pleadings in this case
are whether Respondent United and Respondent Goodwin
constitute a single integrated enterprise, or whether
Respondent United is the alter ego of Respondent
Goodwin.
If the answer is in the affirmative to either one of the
foregoing complaint allegations, then the question is
whether Respondent United and Respondent Goodwin
have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act (1), by the
refusal to recognize the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the journeymen and appren-
tices of Respondent United, and (2), by the refusal to apply
the terms and conditions of the collective-bargaining
agreement between Respondent Goodwin and the Union
to those employees of Respondent United.
B. Admissions and Stipulations
It was admitted in the pleadings that, at all times
material herein, Respondent Goodwin has been a party to
a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union effective
from June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1977, covering the
employment terms and conditions of employees in a unit of
those employed by Respondent Goodwin as journeymen or
apprentices in the construction industry.
It was further admitted in the pleadings that the unit
described above has been at all times material herein an
appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act.
The parties stipulated that there was never a time when a
supervisor for one company was authorized, or had
authority, to be supervising for another company at the
same time. The parties stipulated that if a person was a
supervisor for Respondent United, that person had no
supervisory authority for Respondent Goodwin and vice
versa.
The parties also stipulated with regard to Noel Buckley
that he served with Respondent United as a supervisor on a
grain elevator job. After he completed his work on that job,
Buckley then went to work as a supervisor for Respondent
Goodwin on the kitchen facility for the school in Pocatello,
Idaho. Thereafter, Buckley was a supervisor for Respon-
dent Goodwin on the Eagle Rock Bridge job in Idaho
Falls, Idaho. After completing his service there, Buckley
worked as a supervisor for Respondent United on the
Monsanto job. After that job, Buckley left the area
permanently in January 1976, and he did not work for
either Respondent United or Respondent Goodwin there-
after.
With regard to Boyd Bowers, the parties stipulated that
at the end of 1975 Bowers was working as a supervisor for
Respondent Goodwin on the Bronco Road project. After
that job was completed and after some elapse of time,
Bowers worked for Respondent United on the Ririe outlet
job. Bowers next worked as a supervisor for Respondent
United on the Sutton Brothers job, and then Bowers
returned to the Ririe outlet job as a supervisor for
Respondent United. From that job, Bowers went to the
lower Idaho Falls Dam job as a supervisor for Respondent
Goodwin.
With regard to Howard Clark, the parties stipulated that
Clark served as a supervisor for Respondent United only
on one occasion, and that occasion was the Ririe outlet job.
At all other times, Clark has been employed as a supervisor
for Respondent Goodwin.
With regard to persons who had worked for both
companies as employees, the parties stipulated that
Respondent Goodwin at its peak employment period
would employ approximately 100 to 120 employees. Over
the 2-year period of time since Respondent United was
formed, approximately 20 to 30 percent of the employees of
Respondent Goodwin may have at some time also worked
for Respondent United, but those employees never were on
the payroll of both companies at the same time.
905
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The Formation of Respondent Goodwin
In 1944, Bhueland R. Goodwin and his brother, Verl
Goodwin, became equal partners in the Goodwin Con-
struction Company. In the early part of the 1950's,
Respondent Goodwin recognized the Union, and at the
time of the hearing, Respondent Goodwin was signatory to
the Southern Idaho Master Labor Agreement with the
Union. The negotiations for that agreement were handled
by the Associated General Contractors of which Respon-
dent Goodwin is a member.
The two partners have divided the areas of responsibility
for operating Respondent Goodwin between themselves.
Bhueland Goodwin generally has responsibility for manag-
ing the office and doing the major part of the estimating,
while Verl Goodwin has the responsibility for handling
most of the field work and the equipment.
Respondent Goodwin is a general contractor. While it
has done some work in the private sector, most of
Respondent Goodwin's work has been in the public sector,
including Public Works projects, State Highway Depart-
ment projects and projects for the Bureau of Reclamation.
Bhueland Goodwin, Verl Goodwin, and perhaps Supervi-
sor Howard Clark usually decide on which jobs Respon-
dent Goodwin will submit a bid. The partners in Respon-
dent United, other than Bhueland Goodwin and Verl
Goodwin, do not play a part in the decisionmaking as to
which jobs Respondent Goodwin will bid on.
Bhueland Goodwin and Verl Goodwin together decide
who will be the supervisor on one of Respondent
Goodwin's projects. The other five partners in Respondent
United do not play any part in deciding who will be the
supervisor of the project for Respdndent Goodwin. The
supervisor of the job for Respondent Goodwin possesses
the authority to hire and fire employees and handles the
labor relations on that particular job unless the matter
comes to the point where the entire Company is involved.
Respondent Goodwin has employed supervisors who
had previously supervised a job for Respondent United,
but there has never been an occasion where a supervisor
for Respondent Goodwin has had supervisory authority at
that time over a job for Respondent United. When
supervisors have been working for Respondent Goodwin,
they have not had any labor relations responsibilities for
Respondent United.
The foregoing findings of fact are based on the testimony
of Bhueland Goodwin, whose testimony has been credited
throughout this proceeding. Bhueland Goodwin, J. C.
Goodwin, and Evan Goodwin gave testimony in a clear
and coherent manner, and in my view, their testimony is
the more reliable and accurate account of these events.
Many of the findings of fact made herein are based on the
testimony which they gave, but in some instances testimo-
ny by other witnesses or other evidence was not disputed in
this proceeding. Accordingly, certain findings of fact also
rest on testimony given by other witnesses and on
documentary evidence. However, where there are conflict-
ing versions, I have made findings of fact based on the
accounts related by Bhueland Goodwin, J. C. Goodwin,
and Evan Goodwin.
D. The Formation of Respondent United
In June or July 1974, Respondent United was formed
with the seven equal partners previously mentioned.
Bhueland Goodwin, who was 61 years old at the time of
the hearing, gave both family and economic reasons for the
formation of Respondent United. The family reasons
concerned forming a company for the sons of Bhueland
Goodwin and Veri Goodwin, and the economic reasons
concerned forming a company to enter a field of work in
which Respondent Goodwin did not compete. Bhueland
Goodwin explained:
Well, it came to be organized because there was a
distinct market that Goodwin Construction Company
couldn't touch.
Well, mainly the market is in that sector where the
predetermined wages are not involved in certain areas
where companies didn't invite Goodwin to bid on work
and a lot of jobs in the utility field where the non-union
contractors were taking all the work. We bid the work
for periods of a year or two years at a time and
probably bid as high as 15 or 20 jobs and never
received a contract because we were just out of the
competition.
That was one factor. The other factor was that our
son, Evan Goodwin, had been working for a large
contractor in the East. We hired him to come in as an
engineer for our company just a few months prior to
this, and we felt that they were capable and should be
on their own, and they wanted to be on their own and
form their own company and make their own money.
J. C. Goodwin, who is the son of Verl Goodwin and
who was 39 years old at the time of the hearing, explained
the reasons for the formation of Respondent United as
follows:
Well, as I and some of the other partners got along in
years and were still working for wages, we felt we would
like to be in a business also. We had talked it over
somewhat and we decided amongst us that there was a
definite market for an open shop contractor in the
utility field, and we decided to form a company in
regards to these two points.
According to Evan Goodwin, the five sons of Bhueland
and Verl Goodwin who are partners in Respondent
United, have also worked for companies other than
Respondent United and Respondent Goodwin.
The foregoing findings of fact in this section are based
upon the testimony given by Bhueland Goodwin, J. C.
Goodwin, and Evan Goodwin.
906
UNITED CONSTRUCTORS AND GOODWIN CONSTRUCTION CO.
E. The Offices, Bank Accounts, Licenses and Other
Matters of Respondent Goodwin and Respondent
United
A major break in the Teton Dam on June 4, 1976, caused
severe flooding in Blackfoot, Idaho, and surrounding areas.
As a result of the flood, Respondent Goodwin built a new
office building. The new building houses offices for both
Respondent Goodwin and Respondent United just as the
old building which it replaced had done in the past.
Respondent United continued to pay a fee to Respondent
Goodwin (I) for the use of office space in the building (2),
for use of office equipment, and (3) for the services
performed for Respondent United by Evan Goodwin.
The fee which Respondent United pays to Respondent
Goodwin is set at 7 percent of the annual gross revenues of
Respondent United. The 7-percent figure originated with
the accountants who annually audit the books of Respon-
dent Goodwin.
Although Respondent Goodwin and Respondent United
occupy offices in the same building, they have different
telephone numbers and different post office boxes. Re-
spondent Goodwin and Respondent United maintain
separate bank accounts at different banks. Each company
has a separate contractor's license. Each one keeps a
separate set of books and each one files separate tax
returns. They carry separate insurance policies, and they
have different wage and benefit programs.
With regard to the use of Respondent Goodwin's
equipment, there is no special arrangement between the
two companies. Bhueland Goodwin stated that they used
the "same procedure as if we rent it to anybody else." He
explained that Respondent Goodwin's equipment is rented
on an hourly, weekly, or monthly basis at rates established
by the Associated Equipment Dealers Guide Book for the
State of Idaho, the Department of Highways Rate Book, or
what is known as the Blue Book.
J. C. Goodwin, who is one of the partners in Respon-
dent United, stated that Respondent United leased
equipment from various companies, including Respondent
Goodwin, and that Respondent United paid the normal
rates in the State of Idaho for such equipment pursuant to
written leases. He said that when equipment was leased
from Respondent Goodwin, Goodwin's name on the
equipment was not removed. He estimated that from
January 1, 1976, to the time of the hearing on February 24,
1977, that Respondent United leased about 50 percent of
its equipment from Respondent Goodwin.
Evan Goodwin, who is one of the partners in Respon-
dent United and also a civil engineer for Respondent
Goodwin, explained that Respondent United during 1976
had made leases in the amount of $35,000 for equipment
from firms other than Respondent Goodwin, and during
the same period of time, Respondent United had made
equipment leases in the amount of $30,000 from Respon-
dent Goodwin. He said that Respondent Goodwin some-
times leased only the equipment to Respondent United and
at other times Respondent Goodwin leased both the
equipment and the operator to Respondent United. He
added that Respondent Goodwin has charged for its
delivery of equipment to the jobsite.
Respondent Goodwin does not guarantee the perfor-
mance of any work by Respondent United.
Although Bhueland Goodwin and Verl Goodwin are two
of the seven partners in Respondent United, they are not
involved in the day-to-day operations of Respondent
United. They do not hire any employees of Respondent
United. They do not play any part in deciding who the
supervisors for Respondent United will be. They do not do
any of the bidding for Respondent United. They do not
supervise any of Respondent United's jobs. They do not
handle labor negotiations or labor relations matters for
Respondent United. They also do not sign checks for
Respondent United.
Bhueland Goodwin acknowledged that persons who had
been employees of Respondent Goodwin at one time had
later worked for Respondent United. He gave one such
occasion as the Ririe outlet job where the employees of
Respondent Goodwin had completed their work in the fall
of the year. The employees were terminated by Respondent
Goodwin; however, Respondent United had work for
them. Bhueland Goodwin explained:
Well, we felt that there was a lot of good manpower
available; that if they wanted to go to work for United,
we were happy that people had worked for us who we
hoped to hire again in the spring could keep on
working. We couldn't provide the work, but we were
certainly willing to have them work on some other job
if they could.
With regard to former employees of Respondent Good-
win who worked for Respondent United, Evan Goodwin
described the situation as follows:
The only time that I would know that United
Constructors would be hiring a Goodwin Construction
employee or someone that had worked with Goodwin
Construction Company was if he was presently unem-
ployed and was seeking employment.
Evan Goodwin gave the following as sources for
employees of Respondent United:
Well, there are several avenues. One of them is that
they go through the state employment agency for
employees. They also advertise in the local papers in
the area in which they are working. They also advertise
over the radio for personnel. They also use other
personnel whose recommendations they have for
people.
While Respondent United has been a member of the
Associated General Contractors, Respondent United,
unlike Respondent Goodwin, has not authorized the AGC
to negotiate on its behalf with labor organizations. Evan
Goodwin gave the following description of the differences
in the wage-and-benefit policy between the two companies:
Well, I think in explanation, the Goodwin Construc-
tion has agreements signed with the Five Basic Crafts
and also other unions, which would particularly be the
Iron Workers, in which the fringe benefits, the wages,
are negotiated and established for a definite period of
907
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time, and the fringe benefits are paid directly to a trust
fund. United Constructors' wages are based upon when
- if they are predetermined it would be written into a
contract that they bid, and also those that don't have
predetermined wages are Davis-Bacon Act, and the
wages are determined from whatever the man - what
he produces and when he has worked he is paid on that
basis. Under the Davis-Bacon Act, the fringe benefits
are paid directly to the employee himself as direct cash
to him rather than to a trust fund, which is within the
union agreement.
The findings of fact in this section are based upon the
testimony given by Bhueland Goodwin, J. C. Goodwin,
and Evan Goodwin.
F. The Five Sons of Bhueland Goodwin and Verl
Goodwin
With regard to Evan Goodwin, Bhueland Goodwin
stated that Evan Goodwin had been working for a
construction company in Washington, D.C., when he
returned to Idaho and was hired as an engineer for
Respondent Goodwin. Evan Goodwin works in Respon-
dent Goodwin's office with Respondent Goodwin's estima-
tor, bookkeeper, and a secretary. He has the authority to
see that those three persons perform their job. On one
occasion, Evan Goodwin replaced a bookkeeper of
Respondent Goodwin who had fallen behind in his work.
Bhueland Goodwin said that Evan Goodwin had the
authority to hire office personnel for Respondent Goodwin
with the approval of Bhueland Goodwin. Evan Goodwin
has the authority to fire office personnel who are not
performing their jobs, but he does not have the authority to
hire field employees of Respondent Goodwin or supervi-
sors for Respondent Goodwin.
Bhueland Goodwin stated that the other partners in
Respondent United similarly do not have the authority to
hire and fire for Respondent Goodwin unless that person is
working as a supervisor for Respondent Goodwin on a
project.
Evan Goodwin, who is the son of Bhueland Goodwin,
holds a degree as a civil engineer. He described his duties
for Respondent Goodwin as follows:
Well, I'm involved in an administrative capacity.
Generally my responsibility would apply to oversee
that the records are kept as to costs on jobs; also to
participate to some extent in the bidding process and
generally responsible for the flow of the paperwork
through the Goodwin Construction.
He clarified that his participation in the bidding process
involved the estimating part since Bhueland Goodwin and
Verl Goodwin make the decision as to which jobs
Respondent Goodwin will bid on.
Evan Goodwin is the primary managing partner in
Respondent United along with his first cousin, J. C.
Goodwin, who has also participated at times as a
superintendent for Respondent United.
J. C. Goodwin said that normally he and Evan
Goodwin decided what jobs would be bid by Respondent
United and who the superintendent on the job would be
for Respondent United. During 1976, J. C. Goodwin
worked all 12 months for Respondent Goodwin on certain
projects, including the Burley-Rupert bridge overlay
project and the rehabilitation of some canals in the
Blackfoot, Idaho, area. During that time, J. C. Goodwin
did not supervise any employees of Respondent United or
handle labor relations matters for Respondent United;
however, he continued to make recommendations to Evan
Goodwin for superintendents for Respondent United's
projects. At the time of the hearing, he was employed
elsewhere other than by Respondent Goodwin.
Raymond Goodwin, who is a son of Bhueland Goodwin,
worked as the superintendent on one project during 1976
for Respondent United. That was the East Village project.
Raymond Goodwin has never been a supervisor for
Respondent Goodwin. On two occasions during 1976, he
worked in the office of Respondent Goodwin and did
estimating.
At the Farmers Grain project, Raymond Goodwin did
not work for Respondent United. However, Bannock
Paving Company leased a backhoe and an operator from
Respondent Goodwin for that particular project. Raymond
Goodwin worked as the operator of that leased equipment.
Ron Green, a business agent for Operating Engineers
Local 370, confirmed that Raymond Goodwin was operat-
ing the backhoe when Green visited the jobsite. Green
observed Respondent Goodwin's equipment and Bannock
Paving's equipment on the project. He asked Raymond
Goodwin (described as being a member of his Union) for
whom he was working. Green said that Goodwin informed
him that it was Respondent United.
Green's testimony regarding the response by Raymond
Goodwin was not contradicted. Therefore, I have accepted
it as factual. Nevertheless, I find that Raymond Goodwin
was not, in fact, employed by Respondent United on that
particular project, based on the credited testimony of Evan
Goodwin.
Ron Green said that in September 1976 he went to the
East Bench job in Pocatello. He said that Raymond
Goodwin told him that he was the superintendent of the
job. Green asked him to sign the agreement, but Raymond
Goodwin refused to do so. Green observed Respondent
Goodwin's equipment on that project, and he also
observed an operating engineer named Leo Gilbert
operating the backhoe.
East Bench appears to be another designation for the
East Village project where Raymond Goodwin was a
superintendent for Respondent United. Raymond Good-
win did not testify, and I have accepted as factual the
foregoing description by Green.
Russell Goodwin, who is a son of Bhueland Goodwin,
was employed on the Tiffany Park and East Village
projects for Respondent United during 1976. He also
worked for Respondent Goodwin for about 2 weeks after
the flood caused by the break in the Teton Dam. At the
time of the hearing, he was not employed.
Robert Goodwin, who is a son of Verl Goodwin,
supervised two projects for Respondent United during
1976. One of the projects was the Tiffany Park project and
the other was the Cedar Park project. Also during 1976,
908
UNITED CONSTRUCTORS AND GOODWIN CONSTRUCTION CO.
Robert Goodwin worked as an employee of Respondent
Goodwin for part of the year; however, he has never been a
superintendent for Respondent Goodwin.
In July 1976, Ron Green went to a project where he said
the following took place:
Then again in July of 1976 on a sewer and water
project on Quinn Road in Pocatello, I went on that job.
There was Goodwin equipment on that one also. Bob
Goodwin was the superintendent on the job. I asked
him to sign an agreement. He said no, that would
eliminate the reason for United Constructors. I asked
him what he meant by that. He says, "Well, under
United Constructors, we don't have to hire the union
help."
According to Green, he observed Respondent Goodwin's
equipment on that project, and he also saw one of his union
members, Leo Gilbert, operating a backhoe.
Evan Goodwin said that Leo Gilbert was an operator of
a backhoe that had been leased from Respondent Goodwin
to Respondent United on the Quinn Road project and the
East Bench project. He said that Gilbert was an employee
of Respondent Goodwin at that time.
The foregoing findings of fact in this section are based
upon the testimony of Bhueland Goodwin, J. C. Goodwin,
Evan Goodwin, and Ron Green.
G. Three Instances of Subcontracting of Work
Between Respondent United and Respondent Goodwin
Since the time that Respondent United has been in
existence, Respondent Goodwin has had about 19 major
projects and about 20 to 25 minor projects.
Normally, Respondent Goodwin and Respondent Unit-
ed do not subcontract work to each other. However, there
have been three instances where this has occurred. These
three projects were known as the Burley-Rupert overlay
project; the Garden City project, and the Farmers Grain
project.
With regard to the Burley overlay project, Respondent
United was a subcontractor to the general contractor,
Respondent Goodwin. Respondent United was supposed
to do the deck sealant work on the Twin Bridges overlay
project. A standard written subcontracting agreement was
entered into between the two companies on March 19,
1976. After Respondent United began the job, Respondent
United decided that they did not have the expertise to
perform the specialty work. Therefore, Respondent United
requested in a letter dated June 18, 1976, to Respondent
Goodwin that it be released from that portion of the
subcontracting agreement. Respondent United went ahead
and completed the remaining portion of the subcontract.
Meanwhile, on April 27, 1976, John Charlton, a field
representative of Laborers Local 267 had a conversation
with J. C. Goodwin, who at that point in time was
superintendent for Respondent Goodwin on the Burley
overlay project. Charlton said that he observed a trailer on
the project with the name "Goodwin Construction Compa-
ny" on it. Charlton gave the following version of their
conversation that day:
So then when I walked down to the job and Mr. Jake
Goodwin was there, I asked Jake at that time if he was
superintendent on the job for Goodwin Construction
and he said yes, and I said, "I don't recognize these
laborers and I would like to know what was taking
place." Jake Goodwin told me at that time that United
Construction had a subcontract on the demolition work
from - I forget the construction company.
. * *
Yes. I asked Jake at that time if we could sit down
and talk about signing the union agreement with
United Construction or Constructors or whatever, and
he said, "No, there's no need to talk about signing an
agreement with United; it will defeat the purpose of
starting a non-union job out there."
Yes. Jake told me about the Ririe outlet. He said
United Construction had ajob there and that Goodwin
employees were working on that job for United
Constructors.
Charlton testified that he visited the project on three or
four other occasions during which time J. C. Goodwin told
him that maybe Respondent United would not be on that
project anymore.
J. C. Goodwin recalled having a conversation with
Charlton on the Burley jobsite regarding the Ririe outlet
job. Goodwin, however, recalled that their conversation
was with regard to the fact that Respondent Goodwin had
a lot of employees who were out of work because
Respondent Goodwin did not have any work at that time.
Thus, J. C. Goodwin said that their conversation con-
cerned employees who were formerly employed by Re-
spondent Goodwin.
As indicated previously, I have credited J. C. Goodwin's
testimony, and I base the findings of fact with regard to
this matter on his version of the conversation with
Charlton.
With regard to the Garden City project, Respondent
United was a subcontractor to Nielsen Construction
Company. That work similarly involved concrete overlay
work on a bridge in Boise, Idaho. Like the Burley overlay
project, Respondent United realized that it did not have
the experience to perform that work. Accordingly, Respon-
dent United asked Nielsen to release Respondent United
from its agreement, and Respondent Goodwin did the
work.
With regard to the Farmers Grain project, Respondent
United was the successful bidder for the construction of the
foundation for six grain silos about 30 feet in diameter.
However, the contract had a 45-day time limit and was a
contract of about $167,000 in amount. Respondent United
entered into a subcontract with Respondent Goodwin to
furnish additional personnel for the job because Respon-
dent Goodwin had better access to qualified people.
Respondent United also had a subcontract with Bannock
Paving for the excavation work. Employees of all three
companies worked at thejobsite.
909
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The foregoing findings of fact in this section are based on
the testimony of Bhueland Goodwin and Evan Goodwin as
well as documentary evidence introduced at the hearing.
H. Superintendent Howard Clark and Related
Matters
Bhueland Goodwin pointed out that Howard Clark had
been a superintendent for Respondent Goodwin for a
number of years. He described one occasion where Clark
had completed his work for Respondent Goodwin, and
then Clark became a superintendent for Respondent
United on a job. Bhueland Goodwin said that a similar
occurrence had taken place when Respondent Goodwin
had run out of work on another occasion, and Clark went
to work for another contractor, Wangsgaard Construction
Company, for 2 or 3 months. Bhueland Goodwin stated
that Respondent Goodwin did not pay Clark when he
worked for either Respondent United or for Wangsgaard.
As noted earlier, it was stipulated that Howard Clark had
been a supervisor for Respondent United on only one
occasion and that occasion was the Ririe outlet project.
Cleston Taylor, a business representative of Carpenters
Local 609, recalled having a conversation with Clark
sometime in November 1975 while Clark was a superinten-
dent for Respondent Goodwin. Taylor testified:
Well, I was asked what my attitude would be if they
used people on the Goodwin payroll at that time,
transferring them to a job for United Constructors, and
I indicated at the time that I could not take an attitude
until such time as it did happen.
A dispatch slip signed by Taylor and dated August 26,
1975, was introduced in evidence. It shows the dispatch of
Dee Young to work on August 27, 1975, for Respondent
Goodwin at the Rigby project at the request of Howard
Clark.
Subsequently, in January 1976, Dee Young, who was a
member of Carpenters Local 609, telephoned Taylor and
advised him that he was being paid by Respondent United.
Taylor expressed the opinion that it was illegal since Young
had previously been dispatched to work for Respondent
Goodwin, and Young was not being paid the contract
benefits. However, Young testified that he told Taylor that
he was being paid the equivalent of the fringe benefits in
cash.
Young confirmed that he went to work for Respondent
Goodwin about the end of August 1975. He said that he
was dispatched to the North Rigby overpass job, but that
he subsequently went to work on another job for Respon-
dent Goodwin. About the end of November 1975, the
bridge job at Menan was completed, and Howard Clark
told Young and another carpenter "there wouldn't be any
work for a while .... " Young was of the view at the
hearing, however, that he was not laid off from work.
Young said that it was a couple of weeks later when
Howard Clark asked him if he wanted to go back to work
for a nonunion company, Respondent United. Young said
that Clark explained that he had spoken to the local union
regarding it, and that Young's benefits would be paid to
him on his check along with his wages.
At first, Young said that he went to work for Respondent
United just before Christmas 1975, but after being
confronted during cross-examination with Respondent
United's timecard record, Young said that he began work
for Respondent United during the week ending January 30,
1976.
At the Ririe canal project, Young said that he saw two
foremen who had previously worked with Young on jobs
for Respondent Goodwin, and he also saw two employees
with whom he had worked on Respondent Goodwin's jobs.
Nevertheless, Young said that it was not unusual to see
employees who had previously worked for one employer be
working on projects for another employer. In addition, to
Respondent Goodwin and Respondent United, Young
named two other employers for whom he had worked.
Young gave the opinion: "[Y]ou don't go from one job,
you know, with all the same guys. I mean you run into two
or three guys on every job that you worked other jobs
with."
On June 7, 1976, after the flood, Young quit work for
Respondent United, and he has not worked for either
Respondent United or Respondent Goodwin since that
time.
In the spring of 1976, Ron Green, a business agent of
Operating Engineers Local 370, went to the Ririe Canal
project and spoke with Howard Clark. Green recalled their
conversation as follows:
Yes. I then asked Mr. Clark - I asked who would
be the superintendent. He said he would. I said, "How
do you intend to man the job?" He said, "We have a
nearby road job and Goodwin Construction has this."
He says, "We figure on putting the people on the Ririe
Canal job from them when they are not busy on the
road job." I then asked him how they intended to pay
them. He said, "Well, we will pay them on the United
Contractors' payroll and put the fringes in cash."
Green acknowledged that Clark told him that the job
was going to be handled by Respondent United.
The foregoing findings of fact in this section are based on
the testimony of Bhueland Goodwin, Cleston Taylor, Dee
Young, and Ron Green as well as documentary evidence
and a stipulation. Howard Clark did not testify.
Mel Dyer, business agent of Laborers Local 1227,
dispatched Wilfred Terry, Jr., and Bob Steed, on July 17,
1975, and August 13, 1975, respectively, to work for
Respondent Goodwin.
On February 9, 1976, Dyer visited the Ririe Canal job
and found two members of his union, Wilfred Terry, Jr.,
and Rick Dimos, working on the job. Dyer said that he told
the two members that it was a nonunion job, but he took
no further action. Dyer said that the signs on the project
indicated that it was a job of Respondent United.
In March 1976, Dyer once again visited the Ririe Canal
job and found still another member, Bob Steed, working
there. Dyer said that he took no action as a result of his
second visit.
Wilfred Terry, Jr., confirmed that he worked for
Respondent Goodwin from July 1975 to sometime in
November 1975 when the Rigby overpass was finished. He
was terminated at that time, but he did not notify the
910
UNITED CONSTRUCTORS AND GOODWIN CONSTRUCTION CO.
Union of his termination, which was not unusual. Howard
Clark had been his superintendent for Respondent Good-
win and Clive Lott had been one of the foremen on the
Rigby project. Terry said that Clark called him regarding
going to work for Respondent United on the Ririe outlet
project. Terry agreed to do so, and Terry began work for
Respondent United about the end of January 1976 or the
early part of February 1976. Clive Lott was one of the
foremen on the Ririe job. Terry worked for Respondent
United until just after the flood in June 1976.
Rick Dimos stated that he had worked for Respondent
Goodwin for most of the year 1975. He was terminated by
Respondent Goodwin in mid-December 1975 when there
was no more work for him. His superintendent was
Howard Clark and his foreman was Clive Lott. Dimos said
that he did not notify the Union of his termination by
Respondent Goodwin, which was not unusual for him.
In mid-January 1976, Dimos went to work for Respon-
dent United after receiving a telephone call from Howard
Clark who asked him if he would accept the work. Dimos
recalled that Business Agent Dyer spoke with him while
Dimos was working for Respondent United. Dimos said
that Dyer suggested that Dimos continue working because
"There was no other work."
While Dimos worked for Respondent United, his
superintendent was Howard Clark and his foreman was
Clive Lott. About the first part of May 1976, Howard Clark
asked Dimos to be a cement finisher, and Dimos returned
to work at that time for Respondent Goodwin. Howard
Clark was once again his superintendent for Respondent
Goodwin, and his foreman was Dean Stump.
Bob Steed worked as a laborer for Respondent Goodwin
from August 1975 until November 1975 when he was laid
off. His superintendent was Howard Clark and his foreman
was Boyd Bowers. Steed did not notify the Union of his
layoff by Respondent Goodwin, which was not unusual for
him.
Following his layoff, Steed worked on a ranch for about
a month or so. In April 1976, he was called by Boyd
Bowers and as a result, he went to work for Respondent
United where he continued to work until August 1976. His
superintendent for Respondent United was Howard Clark
and his foreman was Boyd Bowers. After his termination
by Respondent United, Steed did not go back to work for
Respondent Goodwin.
I. The Farmers Grain Project
Oliver D. Wilkinson was dispatched by George A.
Misner, business agent of Carpenters Local 1258, on May
5, 1975, to work for Respondent Goodwin pursuant to a
by-name request from Evan Goodwin for Oliver Wilkinson
to go to work with his brother, Gary Wilkinson.
Evan Goodwin acknowledged that he had called the
union hall regarding the dispatch of Oliver Wilkinson.
Evan Goodwin said that Gary Wilkinson was working at
the Farmers Grain project at the time and asked him about
his brother going to work there. Therefore, Evan Goodwin
called the union hall and the Union dispatched Oliver
Wilkinson to the job. Evan Goodwin said that he had made
only two such requests - one for Wilkinson and one for a
Teamster.
A dispatch slip dated May 5, 1975, for Oliver Wilkinson
to report to work for Respondent Goodwin was introduced
in evidence.
Gary Wilkinson said that he was working for Respon-
dent Goodwin on a kitchen facility for School District No.
25 in Pocatello until the first week in May 1975 when his
crew was transferred by Respondent Goodwin's Superin-
tendent Taylor from the school district to the grain and
storage elevator job in Blackfoot. Wilkinson testified that
Taylor told them they were going to "work on that job for 8
or 10 days because it was under a tight schedule and they
had to have all the help they could get." Wilkinson was
instrumental in getting jobs for both his brother, Oliver,
and for Harold Cornwall. Wilkinson stated that he talked
with Evan Goodwin who told him that his brother, Oliver,
would be dispatched by the Union and would be paid
union scale and benefits under the union contract.
However, with regard to Cornwall, Evan Goodwin told
him that Cornwall's wage would be negotiated according to
his ability since Cornwall was more or less unskilled. Gary
Wilkinson said that the three of them worked as a crew on
the project for a week. However, Oliver Wilkinson said
that: "The whole job itself was not very big, and there were
three contractors on this job. Actually, we were all working
together."
Noel Buckley was the superintendent for Respondent
United on the Farmers Grain project. As noted previously,
Respondent Goodwin was one of the subcontractors to
Respondent United on that project.
On May 12, 1975, Buckley signed individual termination
slips for three employees on that project. They were Gary
Wilkinson, Oliver Wilkinson, and Harold Cornwall.
Bhueland Goodwin said that Buckley was not a superin-
tendent for Respondent Goodwin at that time that Buckley
signed the termination slips. Bhueland Goodwin stated that
he had not authorized Buckley to do so, and that Buckley
had made a mistake. He did not know of any other
occasion where that had occurred. Evan Goodwin also said
that Buckley had no authority over employees of Respon-
dent Goodwin at that point in time and that he had not
authorized Buckley to sign the termination slips. Both
Bhueland Goodwin and Evan Goodwin asserted that a
supervisor for one company has not concurrently had any
supervisory authority over the employees of the other
company.
Business Agent Misner stated that Oliver Wilkinson
showed his paycheck to Misner for the May 5 to May 12,
1975, period, and that the paycheck was from Respondent
Goodwin and signed by B. R. Goodwin. Misner also said
that Cornwall showed his paycheck to Misner for that
period, and Cornwall's paycheck was from Respondent
United and signed by Evan Goodwin.
Gary Wilkinson and Oliver Wilkinson also saw the
paychecks. They said that they received paychecks from
Respondent Goodwin, whereas Cornwall's check was from
Respondent United. As noted above, Respondent United
was the general contractor on that job, and Respondent
Goodwin was a subcontractor.
The findings of fact set forth above in this section are
based on the testimony of Bhueland Goodwin, Evan
911
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Goodwin, George Misner, Gary Wilkinson, and Oliver D.
Wilkinson as well as documentary evidence.
J. The Meeting in April 1976
Bhueland Goodwin recalled receiving a telephone call
from the union agents who asked if they could come over
and talk. He said that Evan Goodwin was in the office
when the agents came in. He testified: "He was in the
office, and when they came in, they just asked him if it was
all right for him to sit in." He said that after a general
conversation, the union agents asked why Respondent
United had not signed an agreement. Bhueland Goodwin
was of the opinion that Respondent United was working in
a market where Respondent Goodwin was unable to
compete. He said, "In other words, they were allowing
other non-union contractors to do work that they wouldn't
allow us to do on union jobs."
The findings of fact in this section are based on the
credited testimony of Bhueland Goodwin. Cleston Taylor,
a business representative of Carpenters Local 609, gave a
different version of the conversation. He said that he and
two other business representatives, Mel Dyer and John
Walters, met with Bhueland Goodwin and Evan Goodwin
in Respondent Goodwin's offices. He recalled that they
asked the Goodwins to sign an agreement for Respondent
United on the Ririe Channel outlet. Taylor did not
remember which one of the Goodwins responded, but he
said that one of them said that Respondent United was
formed to compete with nonunion companies in the area,
and also that the prime contractor on the project had
requested that the job be bid by a nonunion company.
A slightly different version of that conversation was
related by Mel Dyer, a business agent of Laborers Local
1227. According to Dyer, it was Bhueland Goodwin who
responded to the question from the union business agents.
He recalled that Bhueland Goodwin told them that they
would not sign an agreement, and the reason was because
of the competition with nonunion contractors. Dyer also
stated that Bhueland Goodwin told them that they were
using Respondent Goodwin's people on the Ririe Canal
job of Respondent United because they were more
qualified to do the job.
As indicated previously, I have credited the account
given by Bhueland Goodwin, rather than the other two
versions, and I have based the findings of fact on Bhueland
Goodwin's version.
K. The First Aid Training Course
On May 15, 1976, a first aid training course was given in
the Armory in Blackfoot, Idaho, by the Associated General
Contractors Five Craft Training Trust.
Dewey Myler, who is the training coordinator for the
trust, made arrangements for the first aid course after
initially receiving a telephone call from Ray Pendlebury,
office manager of Respondent Goodwin. Since it did not
appear that Respondent Goodwin would have the desired
number of employees to attend the course, Myler contact-
ed Ellsworth Construction Company in Blackfoot regard-
ing the course. In addition, a cement mason contacted
Myler regarding the course.
In any event, the attendance list introduced into
evidence by counsel for the General Counsel shows that 10
persons attended the first aid class. Of those 10 persons, 4
listed Respondent United, as their company, 3 listed
Respondent Goodwin as their company, and I each listed
Ellsworth Construction, Mitchell, and Western as their
companies.
According to Myler, no one has been excluded from
attending such first aid classes, but the funding for the
classes comes from the 10-cent-an-hour payments made to
the trust by signatory contractors. As noted earlier,
Respondent United is a member of the Associated General
Contractors, although Respondent United is not signatory
to an agreement with the Union.
The foregoing findings of fact in this section are based
upon the credited testimony of Myler and documentary
evidence.
L. Conclusions
Among the many factors to be considered in resolving
the issues presented in this case are the interrelation of
operations, common management, centralized control of
labor relations, and common ownership. Radio and
Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v.
Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255 (1965).
The Board has pointed out that common ownership, by
itself, is not sufficient. Milo Express, Inc., 212 NLRB 313
(1974); Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local No. 639,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America (Poole's Warehousing,
Inc.), 158 NLRB 1281 (1966).
As the Board stated in Gerace Construction, Inc., and
Helger Construction Conpany, Inc., 193 NLRB 645 (1971):
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the
Respondents have common stockholders and common
directors who have the legal right to control and direct
the affairs of Helger Construction Company, Inc.
However, we disagree with his finding that the
Respondents function as a single enterprise and
therefore constitute a single employer under the Act.
A critical factor in determining whether separate
legal entities operate as a single employing enterprise is
the degree of common control of labor relations
policies. Thus, the Board has found common ownership
not determinative where requisite common control was
not shown, and the Board has held with court approval
that such common control must be actual or active, as
distinguished from potential control. [Footnotes omit-
ted.]
After weighing all of the factors which favor the finding
of a single integrated enterprise or an alter ego, and the
factors which do not favor such findings, I conclude that
the following factors are persuasive that Respondent
United and Respondent Goodwin are not a single
integrated enterprise and that Respondent United is not
the alter ego of Respondent Goodwin:
1. The differences in ownership between Respondent
Goodwin and Respondent United. Respondent Goodwin
has two coequal partners, Bhueland Goodwin and Verl
912
UNITED CONSTRUCTORS AND GOODWIN CONSTRUCTION CO.
Goodwin. Respondent United has seven coequal partners,
only two of whom are Bhueland Goodwin and Verl
Goodwin. Thus, while Bhueland Goodwin and Verl
Goodwin own all of Respondent Goodwin, they own only
two-sevenths of Respondent United.
2. While the partners in Respondent Goodwin and the
partners in Respondent United are all related to one
another, Bhueland Goodwin and Verl Goodwin do not
play any part in the day-to-day operations of Respondent
United. They are not managing partners in Respondent
United, and they are not involved in the supervision of
Respondent United's employees. Thus, the interest in
Respondent United on the part of Bhueland Goodwin and
Verl Goodwin is more like an investment in a company.
Their fatherly desire to launch a company for their sons,
and the sons desire to be partners in a business enterprise
were significant reasons leading to the formation of
Respondent United, as well as the economic reasons to
compete in an area in which Respondent Goodwin was not
involved.
3. There are differences in the labor relations between
the two companies. Although both are members of the
Associated General Contractors, only Respondent Good-
win has authorized the AGC to bargain on its behalf. As a
consequence, the employees of Respondent Goodwin have
received certain wages and fringe benefits pursuant to a
collective-bargaining agreement, which does not cover the
employees of Respondent United. The hiring and firing of
employees in the field are the responsibility of the
supervisor for each company, who also handles labor
relations matters at that level.
4. There has never been a time when a supervisor of
Respondent United was authorized to supervise employees
of Respondent Goodwin, or vice versa. Thus, although
certain persons, such as Clark and Buckley, have been
supervisors at different times for Respondent United and
Respondent Goodwin, they have not been supervisors at
the same time for both companies. The incident where
Buckley signed the termination slips is an isolated one and
was done without authorization.
5. Although employees have worked at different times
for Respondent United and Respondent Goodwin, they
have not worked for both companies at the same time.
Only about 20 to 30 percent of Goodwin's employees have
worked for Respondent United, but the evidence shows
that those employees were laid off or terminated by
Respondent Goodwin and were not on the payroll of both
companies at the same time.
6. Bhueland Goodwin and Verl Goodwin, with some-
times the help of Howard Clark, make the decision as to
what jobs Respondent Goodwin will bid, and they also
decide who the superintendent of the project will be for
Respondent Goodwin. While Evan Goodwin works in the
office of Respondent Goodwin, his supervisory authority
lies there with regard to Respondent Goodwin's employees.
Evan Goodwin's responsibilities primarily involve civil
engineering and administrative functions. Evan Goodwin
and J. C. Goodwin are the two persons who usually
decided which jobs will be bid by Respondent United.
7. Respondent United and Respondent Goodwin
maintain their offices in the same building, but Respondent
United pays 7 percent of its annual gross for use of the
office space, the use of office equipment, and for the
services of Evan Goodwin.
8. Respondent United and Respondent Goodwin have
separate contractor's licenses; have separate bank ac-
counts, maintain a separate set of books; file separate tax
returns; have separate insurance policies; have different
wage and benefits programs; have different telephone
numbers, and have different post office boxes.
9. The leasing of equipment between Respondent
Goodwin and Respondent United has been pursuant to
written agreements and at leasing fees which are standard
rates in Idaho. There has been no special arrangement
between them with regard to their leasing. While Respon-
dent United leased approximately $30,000 in equipment
from Respondent Goodwin in 1976, it leased about $35,000
in equipment from other companies that year. Sometimes,
Respondent Goodwin has leased an operator and the
equipment, such as Leo Gilbert who operated the backhoe
on the Quinn Road project. However, the evidence shows
that Respondent Goodwin has leased the operator and
equipment to another company in the case of Raymond
Goodwin operating the backhoe for Bannock Paving
Company on the Farmers Grain project.
10. There have been only three instances of subcon-
tracting between Respondent United and Respondent
Goodwin. That is a small number when compared with the
more than 40 projects in which Respondent Goodwin has
been involved since the existence of Respondent United.
The subcontracting has been done pursuant to written
agreements. In all three instances, it appears that Respon-
dent United overextended itself and decided that it would
subcontract the work for economic reasons. In two
instances, specialty work was involved in which Respon-
dent United did not have the experience, and in the third
instance, Respondent United was faced with a 45-day time
target on a substantial project. Nevertheless, Respondent
Goodwin does not guarantee the performance of work by
Respondent United, and these subcontracts appear to be
arms-length transactions.
11. The evidence shows that the employees of Respon-
dent Goodwin have not lost work, which they otherwise
would have performed, to the employees of Respondent
United. Respondent Goodwin and Respondent United do
not compete with each other.
12. While some employees of Respondent United
attended the First Aid Training Course on May 15, 1976,
the evidence shows that persons were not excluded from
attending the session.
After considering the foregoing and the entire record, I
conclude that a preponderance of the evidence does not
establish that either Respondent United or Respondent
Goodwin has engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the findings of fact and upon the entire
record in this proceeding, I make the following conclusions
of law:
913
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Respondent United and Respondent Goodwin are
employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent United and Respondent Goodwin have
not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint in this proceeding.
I In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the Board, the findings, conclusions and
recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceed-
ing, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER'
It is hereby ordered that the complaint in this proceeding
be dismissed in its entirety.
and Regulations, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all
purposes.
914