Weeke Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 955 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

WEEKE ELECTRIC COMPANY
Vernon Weeke. a Sole Proprietor, d/b/a Weeke Elec-
tric Company and Congress of Independent Unions
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Lo-
cal Union No. 702, AFL-CIO and Congress of In-
dependent Unions. Cases 14 CA 11738 and 14
CP-291
June 11, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENELLO, MURPHY, AND TRUESDAIF
On March 1, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
George F. Mclnerny issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Union filed
exceptions and a supporting 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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings,' findings,2 and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.3
We agree with Administrative Law Judge's ruling that Respondent
Union was not entitled, in the circumstances present here, to collaterally
attack the lawfulness of the Employer's recognition of Congress of Indepen-
dent Unions (CIU), since that recognition took place more than 6 months
prior to the filing of the charges herein and, therefore, could not be chal-
lenged directly in proceedings under Sec. 8 or 9 of the Act. We note that.
contrary to the Administrative Law Judge's statement, in Sheet Metal Work-
ers International Association Local No. 2, AFL CIO (Farmer & Sipes, Inc.
d/b/a Rain-Flow of Kansas City), 201 NLRB 568 (1973). and Local Union
No. 42, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (R E
Asphalt Service, Inc.), 185 NLRB 163 (1970), as well as in the instant case,
the employers' allegedly unlawful recognition and assistance of the incum-
bent unions took place more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charges.
We, however, agree with the Administrative Law Judge's fnding that Rain-
Flow and R d E Asphalt are distinguishable from the present case in that in
those cases the Board did not reach the issue presented here, i.e.. whether a
union, in defense of 8(b)(7XA) charges, may litigate the lawfulness of an
employer's recognition of another labor organization more than 6 months
prior to the filing of the 8(b)7XA) charges. Rather, in Rain-Flow and R & E
Asphalt, the Board dismissed the complaints on the ground that the con-
tracts, on their face and as adnunistered, did not constitute bars to the rais-
ing of questions concerning representation under Sec. 9(c) of the Act.
I In various places in his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge refers to
the Charging Party as "Congress of Industnal Unions," whereas the correct
name of the Charging Party is Congress of Independent Unions
Member Penello notes that he dissented in Local 1575, International Long-
shoremen's Association (Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc.), 227 NLRB
471 (1976), cited by the Administrative Law Judge, on the ground that in his
view the employer in that case was exempt from the coverage of the Act.
3In par. I of the recommended Order directed to Respondent Union. the
Administrative Law Judge provides that Respondent Union shall cease and
desist from certain activity "under conditions prohibited by Section
8(b)7XA) of the Act." We shall modify the recommended Order to specifi-
cally conform to the language of Sec. 8(bX7)(A), which proscribes such ac-
tivity by a labor organization when "the employer has lawfully recognized in
accordance with [the] Act any other labor organization and a question con-
cerning representation may not appropnately be raised" under Sec 9(c) of
the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that Respondents, Vernon
Weeke, a Sole Proprietor, d/b/a Weeke Electric
Company, Nashville, Illinois, his agents, successors,
and assigns, and International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, Local Union No. 702, AFL-CIO, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the ac-
tion set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
I. Substitute the following for paragraph I of the
Order directed to Respondent Union:
"1I. Cease and desist from picketing, or causing to
be picketed, or threatening to picket Vernon Weeke, a
Sole Proprietor, d/b/a Weeke Electric Company,
where an object thereof is forcing or requiring said
Employer to recognize or bargain with it as the repre-
sentative of the Employer's employees, or forcing or
requiring said employees to accept or select Respon-
dent Union as their collective-bargaining representa-
tive, when said Employer has lawfully recognized
Congress of Independent Unions, and a question con-
cerning representation may not appropriately be
raised under Section 9(c) of the Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for the notice of
the Administrative Law Judge marked "Appendix
B."
APPENDIX B
NOTICE
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
To all members of International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, Local Union No. 702. AFL-CIO, and
to all employees of Vernon Weeke d/b/a Weeke
Electric Company:
We hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT picket, or cause to be picketed,
or threaten to picket Vernon Weeke, a Sole Pro-
prietor, d/b/a Weeke Electric Company, where
an object thereof is to force or require Vernon
Weeke to recognize or bargain with us as the
representative of his employees, or to force or
require the employees of Vernon Weeke to ac-
cept or select us as their collective-bargaining
representative, when Vernon Weeke has lawfully
recognized Congress of Independent Unions,
and a question concerning representation may
242 NLRB No. 141
955
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC-
TRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 702,
AFL-CIO
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE F. MCINERNY, Administrative Law Judge: On
August 15, 1978, the Charging Party, Congress of Indepen-
dent Unions, herein referred to as CIU, filed a charge
against Weeke Electric Company, herein referred to as Re-
spondent Employer or the Company. Then, on August 18,
1978, CIU filed a charge against International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 702, AFL-CIO,
herein referred to as Respondent Union or IBEW. There-
after, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, herein referred to as the Board, by the Regional
Director for Region 14, issued a consolidated complaint
dated September 8, 1978, alleging that Respondent Em-
ployer' had violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein referred to
as the Act, and that Respondent Union had violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act. In response, the Company de-
nied, generally, the commission of any unfair labor prac-
tices, and IBEW did the same, further alleging that its
conduct was proper in that Respondent Employer had un-
lawfully recognized CIU as the bargaining agent for its em-
ployees.
Pursuant to notice contained in the consolidated com-
plaint, a hearing was held before me at St. Louis, Missouri,
on November 3, 1978, at which all parties were represented
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce documen-
tary and other evidence.' After the close of the hearing, the
General Counsel and Respondent Union filed briefs, and
CIU filed a memorandum in support of the complaint.
These have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent Employer, Vernon Weeke, is a sole propri-
etor doing business as Weeke Electric Company. At all
times material herein he has maintained his principal office
and place of business in Nashville, Illinois, where he is en-
gaged in the business of electrical contracting and the sale
and dstribution of electrical appliances and related prod-
ucts. During the year ending December 31, 1977, which
period is representative of its operations during all times
material herein, Respondent Employer purchased goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which goods
I The complaint was amended at the hearing to reflect the correct name of
the Employer.
2 On December 8, 1978, the General Counsel filed a motion To correct
record. In the absence of objection, the motion is allowed.
were transported to his place of business in Nashville, Illi-
nois, directly from points outside the State of Illinois. The
complaint alleges, the Respondent Employer's answer ad-
mits, and I find that Respondent Employer is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
(a) The complaint alleges, Respondent Union's answer
admits, and I find that International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, Local Union No. 702, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
(b) Respondent Union's answer denies that the Congress
of Industrial Unions is a labor organization. I find that the
Congress of Industrial Unions is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.'
Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
There are no disputed facts in this case, based upon the
uncontroverted testimony of Vernon Weeke, Respondent
Employer, and two of his employees, Paul Wilkey and
Gene Dinkelman, which testimony I find to be credible, I
find the following facts. Respondent Employer employs
three employees, who described themselves as electricians
and servicemen, and he operates a retail store and also does
electrical contracting of both residential and commercial
natures. The sequence of events in this case begins with the
execution of a collective-bargaining agreement covering the
three employees between Respondent Employer and the
Charging Party, CIU, on February 8, 1978.' Shortly there-
after, Respondent Union began picketing at the Company's
retail store and at two construction sites. The picketing con-
tinued into the month of March, the pickets carrying signs
which identified Local 702 and which bore a legend to the
effect that the Company was not paying the area standard
wages and fringe benefits.
Around the middle of March, the Company's three em-
ployees met with Gary Roan and Gary Butler, representa-
tives of Respondent Union, at the Company's premises. In
response to a question from the employees as to why the
picketing was taking place, Roan and Butler said it was
because the Company was not paying "standard wages."'
Roan and Butler added that as long as the employees be-
longed to CIU, they really had nothing to talk about. How-
ever, they continued to talk, and eventually Roan asked if
I Richard Davis, national business representative for CIU, testified in a
credible and undenied manner that employees attend membership meetings;
vote on election of officers, revocation of contracts, and constitution
changes; and otherwise participate in CIU activities. The organization itself
represents employees in dealing with employers on grievances, wages, hours,
and conditions of work. This testimony shows that CIU clearly meets the
criteria established by the Board for classification as a labor organization.
Alto Plastics Manufacturing Corporation, 136 NLRB 850 (1962).
' All dates herein are in 1978.
5The CIU contract called for an hourly rate of $7.97 per hour, with no
health and welfare or pension payments. The IBEW contract provides a
basic rate of $7.15 per hour, with 40-cent health and welfare and 6-1/2
percent pension contributions, bringing the total package to slightly over
$8.00 per hour.
956
WEEKE ELECTRIC COMPANY
he could speak to Wilkey outside. Then Roan explained the
"operation of Local 702, their benefits and so forth." They
were then joined by Dinkelman, Butler, and the Company's
third employee, Fred Chwarzinski, and the discussion con-
tinued, with Butler joining Roan in explaining the benefits
and advantages of belonging to Local 702. According to
Dinkelman, the union representatives stated that the only
way to be rid of the pickets would be "to join their union."
As a result of this meeting the three employees joined
IBEW, and, at the same time, Weeke himself executed two
letters of assent agreeing to recognize Local 702 and to be
bound by a collective-bargaining agreement between Re-
spondent Union and Southern Illinois Division, Illinois
Chapter, N.E.C.A., Inc. Since that time Weeke has been
paying the rates called for in the IBEW agreement.6
B. Ana6lsis and Conclusions
Respondent Union contends here that the recognition of
CIU by the Company was unlawful and that the collective-
bargaining agreement entered into between CIU and the
Company is, presumably, null and void. In that case, argues
the Union, the General Counsel has not established that the
Company "lawfully recognized" CIU, and the complaint
that the Union has violated Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act
must fall.
Respondent Union was not permitted to adduce evidence
in support of this argument, but offered to show that in
response to a threat by Respondent Union to picket the
Company because it was paying substandard wages and
fringe benefits, Vernon Weeke suggested CIU to his em-
ployees as a bargaining representative for them, he tele-
phoned CIU and arranged for a representative of that or-
ganization to come to his premises, he arranged a meeting
with a CIU representative and his employees, and after the
picketing had begun, he went to the offices of CIU and,
without any negotiations, signed a standard form of con-
tract.
In such circumstances, Respondent Union asserts, its
picketing in protest against the payment of substandard
wages and fringe benefits would be perfectly proper, or at
least not violative of Section 8(b)(7)(A). That section pro-
vides that
"It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organi-
zation or its agents to picket or cause to he picketed,
any employer where an object thereof is forcing or re-
quiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a
labor organization as the representative of his employ-
ees, or forcing or requiring the employees of an em-
ployer to accept or select such labor organization as
their collective bargaining representative, unless such
labor organization is currently certified as the repre-
scntative of such employees: (A) Where the employer
has lawfully recognized in accordance with this Act
any other labor organization and a question concern-
° Both the "residential" and "inside" agreements provide for a union shop
and for deduction of 1-1/2 percent of each employee's gross earnings as
union dues to be forwarded to Local 702 by the employer. However. there is
no allegation in the complaint that Respondent Employer unlawfully de-
ducted such dues and no evidence in the record that dues were ever de-
ducted.
ing representation may not appropriately be raised un-
der Section 9(c) of this Act."
In order to prevail here, the General Counsel must show
(I) that the Company lawfully recognized CIU as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of the employees in ques-
tion, (2) that a question concerning representation could
not properly be raised, and (3) that the picketing was for
the purpose of organizing the Company's employees or of
forcing the Company to recognize the Union. Local 1575,
International Longshoremen's Association (Puerto Rico Ma-
rine Management, Inc.), 227 NLRB 471 (1976); Interna-
tional Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union Local 8
(Waterway Terminals Company), 193 NLRB 477 (1971).
In examining cases arising under these standards, the
Board has dismissed complaints alleging violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(7)(A) where the General Counsel produced no evi-
dence concerning the circumstances under which the al-
leged incumbent union became the bargaining
representative of the employer's employees: (Local Union
No. 42, Laborers International Union of North America
(R & EAsphalt Service, Inc.), 185 NLRB 163 (1970): or in a
situation where the contract alleged to make the picketing
unlawful itself appeared unlawful on its face (Sheet Metal
Workers International Association Local No. 2, AFL-CIO
(Farmer & Sipes, Inc. d/b/a Rain-Flow of Kansas City). 201
NLRB 568 (1973) ).
The instant case, while it bears some relation to these
cited cases, is also distinguishable from them in that the
recognition of the alleged incumbent and the alleged unlaw-
ful assistance took place more than 6 months prior to the
filing of the charge. In these circumstances the situation
would seem to come within the rule articulated in Interna-
tional Hod Carriers' Building & Common Laborers' Union of
America Road & Heasy Construction, Local 1298, AFL-
CIO (Roman Stone Construction Company, and Kindred
Concrete Products, Inc.). 153 NLRB 659 (1965). In that
case, the Board held that a contract between an employer
and an incumbent union, lawful on its face, and executed
more than a year before picketing by another union com-
menced, precluded the existence of a question concerning
representation; and Section 10(b) of the Act would bar an
unfair labor practice complaint attacking the incumbent
union's representative status. In these circumstances, the
Board noted that Section 8(b)(7)(A) was intended to pro-
mote stability in established bargaining relationships, "an
interest also served by the contract-bar rules and by Section
10(b). To hold . .. that an incumbent union's representative
status may be placed in issue as a defense to 8(b)(7)(A)
charges would permit a rival union to accomplish by means
of picketing what it could not achieve under established
Board procedures. Such an application of 8(b)(7)(A) would
offend the very policy which that Section was designed to
further. Consistent with the congressional scheme, it is our
opinion that the term 'lawfully recognized' was meant to
include all bargaining relationships immune from attack
under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act." See also Local No. 8280,
United Mine Workers of America (Leatherwood No. I Mine
oJ' Blue Diamord Coal Company). 166 NLRB 271, 272
(1967).
Respondent, while recognizing this point, argues that Ro-
man Sone and Blue Diamond may be distinguished from
957
D[)ECISIONS OF NATIONAL. ILABOR RELATIONS BOAR[)
this instant case, pointing to R & A.vpltah Service, .slpra,
and Rain-(;Gn lo l' Kansas (itv, supra, In these cases, both
decided alter Roman Sonc and B/he Diamond, the decisions
spoke in terms of the fact that a question concerning repre-
sentation could have been raised at the time of the picket-
ing. Thus, in those cases the 8(b)(7)(A) charges were dis-
missed.
It is true that the facts here differ from those in Roman
Stone and Blue Diamond,7 but it is my view that the rule
laid down in Roman Stone is absolute and that it should be
applied in any and all circumstances. Here IBEW did ex-
actly what the rule is designed to prevent. Respondent
Union attempted to, and did, accomplish by picketing what
it did not choose to do under established Board procedures.
Respondent Union could, at any time within the 10(b) pe-
riod, have filed charges of unlawful assistance against the
Company. It did not. but through picketing' achieved the
objective which Section 8(b)(7)(A) was designed to prevent.
With regard to Respondent Union's argument that Roman
Stone may have impliedly been overruled by later cases, I
note that the rule seems to have continuing vitality, as it is
quoted with approval in Waterway Terminals Compa!. . u-
pra at 486.
Accordingly, since the contract between the Company
and CIU appears to be valid on its face?, has a beginning
and an end, includes wage rates and vacation benefits, and
appears otherwise to be a legitimate and functionally oper-
ational document and since the picketing by Respondent
Union was undeniedly fbor purposes of organization and
recognition. I find that Respondent Union has violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(7)(A).
It follows, then, that by recognizing and entering into a
collective-bargaining relationship with IBEW while he was
under a valid and continuing obligation to bargain with the
contractual representatives of his employees, Vernon
Weeke violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. Further, by ter-
minating his bargaining relationship with CIU and by repu-
diating the collective bargaining agreement he had entered
into with CIU. Weeke has violated Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act. Supreme Equipment & SYvstems (Corporation 235 NLRB
244 (1978).
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the en-
tire record in this case, I make the following:
CON( I.USII)NS () I.AW
1. Respondent Employer is an employer engaged in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
7 Resnondent Union's offers of proof certainly raise questions as to the
good fth of Weeke and (IlU in early February.
8 While the picket signs may have borne a legend concerning area stan-
dards, it is clear from the undenied and credited testimony of Wilkey and
Dinkelman that the object of the picketing was organization o the employ-
ees and recognition by the Company. both proscribed objectives under Sec.
8(b)(7)(A).
9 The unit description in the contract varies from the unit alleged to be
appropriate in the complaint in that the statutory exclusions do not appear
in the contract. However. since Vernon Weeke testified without contradic-
tion that he had only three full-time employees, I do not find this discrepan-
cy significant.
3. The Charging Party is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. By picketing the premises of and jobsites occupied by
Respondent Employer, for purposes proscribed by law, Re-
spondent Union has violated Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act.
5. By recognizing and bargaining with Respondent
Union, Respondent Employer has violated Section 8(a)(2)
of the Act.
6. By withdrawing recognition from and repudiating his
collective-bargaining agreement with CIU, Respondent
Employer has violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
TIHE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have committed certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they be or-
dered to cease and desist therefrom and that Respondent
Employer take the affirmative action provided for in the
recommended Order below, which I find necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDERI'
Respondent Vernon Weeke, a Sole Proprietor, d/b/a
Weeke Electric Company. his agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize CIU as the collective-bargain-
ing representative of his employees.
(b) Refusing to give effect to the provisions of a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with CIU dated February 8,
1978.
(c) Recognizing and bargaining with Respondent Union.
(d) Giving effect to "letters of assent" dated March 23.
1978. and to any collective-bargaining agreements referred
to or incorporated by reference therein.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing his employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Recognize and bargain with CIU as the collective-
bargaining representative of his employees.
(b) Give effect to, and honor the terms of, a collective-
bargaining agreement with CIU dated February 8, 1978.
(c) Post at his place of business in Nashville, Illinois.
copies of the notice attached hereto as "Appendix A."''
Copies of said notice. on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 14, after being signed by Respondent.
i° In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 olf the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, he adopted by the Board and become its
findings. conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes,
1 In the event that this Order is enforced b) a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tilnal l.abor Relations Board"
958
WEEKE ELECTRIC COMPANY
shall be posted by him immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by him for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered.
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
Respondent International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local Union No. 702, AFL CIO, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
Picketing or causing to be picketed or threatening to
picket Vernon Weeke d/b/a Weeke Electric Company un-
der conditions prohibited by Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act,
where an object thereof is forcing or requiring such em-
ployer to recognize or bargain with them as the collective-
bargaining representative of his employees or forcing or re-
quiring said employees to select or accept Local Union No.
702 as their collective bargaining representative.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business offices, meeting halls, and all
places where notices to members are customarily posted
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."'2 Cop-
ies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 14, after being signed by an authorized rep-
resentative of Respondent Union, shall be posted
immediately on receipt thereof, and be maintained by Re-
spondent Union for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to mem-
bers are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent Union to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Forthwith mail to the Regional Director for Region
14 copies of said notices for posting by the Employer, if he
'1 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
be willing., in places where notices to his employees are cus-
tomarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14. in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
No I(F' To) EMPI.()YS
POSIED BY ORI)ER ()F 1liE
NATIONAI LABOR RELAII()NS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Act. as amended, gives
all employees the following rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or support unions
To bargain as a group through a representative
they choose
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any and all such activities except
to the extent that the employees' bargaining repre-
sentative and employer may have a collective-bar-
gaining agreement which imposes a lawful require-
ment that employees become union members.
In recognition of these rights, I hereby notify my em-
ployees that:
I WIL.I NOT unlawfully recognize International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers. Local Union No. 702,
AFL CIO.
I Wil.L NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce my employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations
Act.
I wlt.t, recognize and, upon request, bargain with Con-
gress of Industrial Unions, and I WILL give effect to
any collective-hargaining agreement with that organi-
zation.
VERNON WFEKE D/B/A WEEKF ELE(-RI( CM-
PANY
959