Western Pacific Roofing Corp.,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 501 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

W'ESIERN PACIFIC ROOIIN(i C'ORPORATION
Western Pacific Roofing Corporation and United
Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and
Waterproof Workers' Association, Local No. 36.
Case 21-CA I o088
August 21, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNIN(; ANI) MI MBRS PNEILO
ANi) TRtUESI)ALI
On May 18, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Earl-
dean V.S. Robbins issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and a reply brief: the
General Counsel and Charging Party filed cross-ex-
ceptions and supporting briefs.
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 briets
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and
conclusions2 of the Administrative l.aw Judge and to
adopt her recommended Order, as modified herein.3
' The Charging Part) has excepted to certain credlhbilty findings made b)
the Administrative l.aw Judge II is the Board's established polic not to
overrule an adminlstrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibilit 5
unless the clear preponderance of all of the rele'sant evidence coninces us
that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dn Ball Pr,,duicl, In, . 91
NLRB 544 (1950). enfid 188 2d 362 3d (ir. 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and ind no basis for reversing her findings
The Administrative Law Judge ilund merit to Respondent's contention
that the existence of a bargaining impasse constituted an "unusual circum-
stance" justifying its otherwise untimely withdrawal from the multlemploler
unit. We continue to adhere to the principle that impasse does not constitute
such an "unusual circumstance." Charle. D Bnanno Linen Senice. Inc . 243
NLRB No. 140 (1979). Moreover. on the basis of the entire record we find
that no impasse existed at the time Respondent attempted to withdraw from
the multiemployer group. In fact, the parties had reached agreement n all
issues only a few dass before Respondent informed the Union of its with-
drawal. The contract was ratified b the Union shortll thereafter
2 Chairman Fanning adheres to the position that an untimely withdrawal
from multiemployer bargaining does not. of itself, constitute a violation of
the Act. Rather, the refusal to execute and apply the contract reached
through multiemployer bargaining is the essential part of the 8(a)(S) iola-
tion. Preston HI Haskell Compar. 238 NLRB 943. fn. I (1979) Ringside
Liquors, Inc. d/h/a Dino'i Lunge, et a.. 237 NLRB 30. fn 2 (1978)L In-
dependent Association of Steel Fabricator,. Inc. et al., 231 NLRB 264. fn. 2
(1977). See also Teatmster. Union, Local 3178 afiliated ith International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, eli (Olnmpia .4 utomo,hlde Dealer.A .4soclo/tion), 243
NLRB No. 138. fn. 1 (1979). Accordingly. Chairman Fanning. while agree-
ing with his colleagues in all other respects herein. would not find that Re-
spondent's withdrawal from the unit, of itself, is violative of the Act.
The Administrative Law Judge recommended a broad remedial order
The Board has recently reconsidered its plicy regarding the application of
the so-called broad order and has decided that such is warranted only when
a respondent is shown to have a proclivity to violate the Act. or has engaged
in such egregious or widespread misconduct as to demonstrate a general
disregard for employees' fundamental statutor rights. Hickmolt oodi, Inc,
242 NLRB No 177 (1979). Inasmuch as Respondent's unlawful acts de-
scribed herein are not of such a nature, we shall modify the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge by substituting the word "in any like
or related manner" for the phrase "in an) other manner" In par. 1(h) of said
recommended Order.
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 the Respondent, Western
Pacific Roofing Corporation, Bell, California, its offi-
cers, agents. successors, and assigns, shall take the ac-
tion set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
I. Substitute the following fr paragraph l(h):
"(h) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
Noril(l To EPI.OYIi:IS
P(s i lI) BY ORDER oF 111
NATIO()NA. LABOR RFL.ATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties had the opportu-
nity to present their evidence the National Labor Re-
lations Board has found that we violated the National
l.abor Relations Act. has ordered us to post this no-
tice. and we intend to abide by the following:
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain as a group through a representa-
tive of their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any and all of these things.
WE WIt.L N)I refuse to bargain collectively
with United Slate, Tile and Composition Roof-
ers, Damp and Waterproof Workers' Associ-
ation, Local No. 36, as the exclusive representa-
tive in its territorial jurisdiction of our employees
in the following appropriate unit:
All employees employed by the employer-
members of the Roofing Contractors Associ-
ation of' Southern California, Inc., in the job
classification set forth in the collective-bar-
gaining agreement between the Roofers
Unions and RCA. effective from August 15.
1974, to August 15. 1977.
WF WIt.L N withdraw from said multiem-
ployer bargaining unit except upon adequate
written notice given prior to the date set bh the
contract for modification, or to the agreed-upon
date to begin the multiemplover negotiations, or
244 NLRB No. 74
501
I)E(ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
at such other time we may lawfully withdraw.
WI WilL NoTi refuse to sign, and acknowledge
that we are hound by the terms of, the collective-
bargaining agreement between the Roofers
Unions and RCA effective August 15. 1977.
WI: will. NOT unilaterally change the wage
rate or discontinue making payments to the var-
ious benefit funds and the reporting of total
hours worked by our employees as required by
the above-described collective-bargaining agree-
ments without first bargaining with the Union.
WE WILL. NOT deal directly and individually
with our employees in derogation of the Union's
status as exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentatives.
WE WIL. NOT unlawfully discharge our em-
ployees.
Wt WILl. NO1 attempt to persuade our em-
ployees to abandon the Union and remain in our
employ by promising employees better working
conditions if' they do so.
WE WIll1. NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WIl.L forthwith sign and acknowledge that
we are bound by the terms of the collective-bar-
gaining agreement between the Roofers Unions
and RCA effective August 15, 1977, and comply
with the terms and conditions thereof, both re-
troactively and for the balance of its term, in-
cluding making payments to the Roofers Union
depository for the various benefit funds as pre-
scribed in said agreement: and wE wiii. make
payments to the various benefit funds as pre-
scribed in the 1974 77 agreement which we
failed to make as a result of individual wage
agreements with our employees.
WE Will. reimburse our employees for any loss
of wages and benefits they may have suffered as
a result of our failure to comply with the terms
and conditions of the above-described agree-
ment, with interest.
WE wi.L offer Willie Williams and Simon
Rangel immediate and full reinstatement to their
former positions or, if those positions no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, and
WE WIi.t reimburse each of them for any loss of
pay he may have suffered because we discharged
him, with interest.
WESTERN PACIFIC ROOFING CORPORATION
DECISION
STAIEMENI OF 111E CASI
EARIDEAN V.S. ROBBINS, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard before me in Los Angeles. ('alifornia.
on March 13 and 14. 1977. The charge was filed by United
Slate. Tile and Composition Roolers. Damp and Water-
proof Workers' Association, Local No. 36. herein called the
Union, and served on Respondent on October I I, 1977.
The complaint, which issued on December 7. 1977. alleges
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)( 1 ) and (5) of the Act.
The basic issue herein is whether, at the time of Respon-
dent's attempted withdrawal from the multiemployer bar-
gaining unit, there existed "unusual circumstances" of a na-
ture to justify such withdrawal after the commencement of
negotiations.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of' the
witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
the parties. I make the following:
FINDINDIN(S ()01 F(
1. JRISII( I iON
Respondent is engaged in the business of' roofing con-
struction and related operations with its principal office lo-
cated in Bell. California. The complaint alleges, and I find
as more fully set forth below, that at all times material
herein Respondent has been, and is now. an employer-
member of the Roofing Contractors Association of' South-
ern California. Inc., herein called R('A, for the purpose of'
collective bargaining with labor organizations.
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
RCA is an association comprised of various employers en-
gaged as roofing contractors in the building and construc-
tion industry in Southern California which exists for and
engages in collective bargaining for, and negotiates and ex-
ecutes collective-bargaining agreements on behalf of. its
employer-members, including Respondent, with various la-
bor organizations, including the Union. The parties stipu-
late that the employer-miembers of' RCA in the aggregate
annually purchase goods, products, and services valued in
excess of $50().000 either directly from suppliers located out-
side the State of (California or directly from suppliers lo-
cated within the State of (alifornia, each of whom in turn
receives the same goods. products. and services directly
from suppliers located outside the State of ('alifornia.
Upon the pleading and the evidence. I find that RCA
and its employer-members, including Respondent. are now.,
and have been at all times material herein. employers en-
gaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6). and (7) of the Act.
II. I.ABOR OR(ANIZATI()N
The Union is now, and at all times material has been, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
Il. 111t A.LLtiED) UNFAIR ABOR P'RA( iS
A. The Alleged Conduel
It is undisputed that until September 1977,1 Respondent
had been a member of RCA since about 1965. It is admit-
'All dates herein will he 1977, unless otherwise indicated.
502
WESTERN PACIFI( RO()OFIN( CORPORATION
led that R('A. on behalf' of' its enlplos\er-nmenibers. and
Rootfers I.ocal No. 36. Roofers I.ocal No. 72.2 and Roofers
I.ocal No. 220. herein referred to collectirvel, as the nions
or the Roolers Uln.,ns. have been parties to successive col-
lective-hbargaining agreements. the most recent of which
was effective from August 15. 1974. until and including Au-
gust 15. 1977. with the inion, within its territorial jurisdic-
tion, as the exclusive majority representative for purposes
of collective bargaining of the employees of the employer-
members of the association. including Respondent. in an
appropriate unit comprised of all employees working within
the job classifications covered by the abhove-stated collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, excluding all office clerical em-
ployees. professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
By letter dated June 7. the Unions timel\ notified R('A
of their intent to modify the existing collective-hargaining
agreement. The first negotiation session was held on Jul>
15. RCA submitted to the Unions a document dated Jul)
14. which lists the employers represented by RCA in the
negotiations. Respondent is listed on this document.'
Johnny Zamrzla. president of Respondent, was a mem-
her of the RCA negotiating committee4 and participated in
most of the negotiation sessions. Upon the expiration of the
1974-77 collective-bargaining agreement the union negoti-
ating committee informed the RCA negotiating committee
that they would not work without a contract and the
Unions went on strike against the employer-members of
RCA. Negotiations continued without hiatus and the
Unions recommended to their membership on September 9
that the) ratify the RCA proposal. The membership re-
jected the proposal. Other proposals had been rejected on
two previous occasions.
During the course of the negotiations, the Union made
several economic concessions which made the new contract
more favorable to the employers than the recently expired
contract, viz, cutting the starting wages of apprentices from
60 percent ofjourneymen wages to 40 percent and lowering
subsequent progressive increases: extended the free zone'
from 25 miles to 30 miles effective August 15, 1978:6 deleted
the requirement that a thermostatically controlled kettle or
tank car be attended by an employee: and reduction of
crew size from two men for eight squares' to two men for 20
squares." The Union's original wage proposal was $1.25 an
hour for each of 3 years plus a cost-of-living increase. The
Subsequent to the negotiations, the Roofers International Union with-
drew the charter of Local No. 72 and transferred all of its members to I.ocal
No. 36.
J Unless otherwise indicated, the facts herein concerning collective-bar-
gaining history and the 1977 negotiations are not disputed
4 At the time of the negotiations. Zamrzla was secretary of RCA. He re-
signed upon Respondent's attempted withdrawal from the unit. He sas also
a member of the safety committee and ice president of the National Roof-
ing Contractors Association and is secretary-treasurer of the Western States
Contractors Association. He has not resigned these latter positions.
Subsistence pay is not required in the free znme.
6 The association had proposed that the entire geographical area covered
by the contract (Orange County. Los Angeles Counts, and Ventura Count),
be considered a free zone.
'One hundred square feet.
Rivera testified that the average residence is about 13 squares. Zamrzla
testified that the average residence and two-car garage is about 25 squales.
According to Rivera, the association had proposed two men to 25 squares.
According to Zamrzla. the proposal was two men to 50 squares
association counterproposed 53 an hour oer a 3-ear pe-
riod. Thes reached agreemenl prior to the final negotiation
session on n $1.10 an hour for the first ear and $I a1 hour
1or each of the 2 succeeding years.
The last negotialtion session was held on September 12.
Zamrzla was present. Ihe major outstanding issues at the
commencement of that session were subsistence pa\. the
proposed inclusion of' a pre-apprentice classification. tid
the proposed contribution to an industr> fund. D)uring the
course of the September 12 negotiation session. agreement
was reached on these issues and certain other minor items.
'The Unions agreed that theS would recommend to their
membership that the proposal be ratified.
A ratificationl meeting was held on September 17 and the
proposed modifications to the preious agreement was rati-
tied hb the membership of the nions. ()n September 16.
Respondent. who operates in the geographical jurisdiction
of the Union. sent the U nion a telegram stating:
THIS IS TO Al)VISE YOU THAT WESTERN PA-
CIFIC ROOFlING CORPORATION IS WIl'IH-
DRAWING THEIR BARGAINING RIGHIS PE R
OUR I.ETTER OF SEP'EMBER IS 1977.
Fernando Rivera. secrelary-treasurer of the Union and
chairman of the union negotiating committee. testified that
the Union did receive the September IS letter: as he recalls
it was received before receipt of the telegram.
John Mitchell, assistant business agent for the Union.
testified that on about September 28 he asked Zamrzla to
sign the new' contract. Zamrzla said he w'as not read to
sign at that time. About a week later. Mitchell telephoned
Zamrzla and asked if he was ready to sign the new agree-
ment. Zamrzla said he was not going to sign the agreement.
Zamrzla testified that Mitchell came to his shop twice
and asked him to sign a document. According to him, the
first time Mitchell had a one-page document which he as-
sumed to be an interim agreement. but he admits he did not
read the document. The second time. Mitchell had a multi-
page document. Both occasions were in the last week of
September or the first week in October. He admits that he
refused to sign the agreement. Shortly thereafter. Rudy Hell
telephoned Zamrzla and said he was sending Union Busi-
ness Agent Hallal over with the contract for Zamrzla to
sign. Zamrzla said he was not going to sign. They had a
short conversation regarding Zamrzla's opposition to the
new contract piecework. free travel zone, etc. Later that
day Hallal came to Zamrzla's office and asked him to sign
the new collective-bargaining agreement. Zamrzla told him
to take the agreement back and Heil would fill him in.
The parties stipulated that no trust fund payments have
been made by Respondent for any period subsequent to
August 15. Zamrzla admits that he is not complying with
the new agreement as to wages and that only one employee
is receiving health insurance coverage.'
Employee Willie Williams testified that during the first
half of 1977 he worked between 40 and 45 hours a week.
9Zamrzla admits that he is presently providing medical and dental cover-
age only for Cooke. This is under a plan different from that provided n the
collectie-bargaining agreement
5)3
DI):(ISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELA'I IONS BOARD
and that in June. July. and August he averaged about 40
hours a week. During that period he was paid by check or
some of' the hours and in cash for some of the hours. Itis
rate of pay was $12.34. When he was paid in cash he re-
ceived cash at the rate of about $8 an hour which is what
his take-home pay after deductions would normally be.'"
Since he understood that those hours tfor which he was paid
in cash would not be reported to the Union, he inquired on
several occasions if Respondent was reporting enough
hours work to ensure that he would be entitled to various
benefits. On each occasion he was assured by Zamrzla or
office personnel that sufficient hours were being reported.
Zamrzla admits that he made these cash payments and
that he did not make contributions to the various trust
funds for the hours worked for which Williams was paid in
cash.
Williams testified that he saw other employees being paid
in cash, but overheard no conversation which would ex-
plain such payments. It is undisputed that for more than a
year Respondent's payroll checks were frequently returned
for insufficient funds. On these occasions he redeemed the
bad checks by giving employees cash.
Employee Simon Rangel testified that he was paid twice
in cash. According to Rangel, in about July he was given
half of his pay in cash and half in a check. On a second
occasion in September, Zamrzla paid him in cash. Rangel
went to the office and protested to Zamrzla and his wife
that he wanted a check stub setting forth the various deduc-
tions. He was then given a slip of paper that listed the
deductions. Rangel asked why they did not deduct for the
Union and for vacations. Mrs. Zamrzla said there was no
more Union." Rangel said he wanted to belong to the
Union.
Mrs. Zamrzla did not testify. Zamrzla testified that on
this second occasion he paid Rangel in cash and at the same
time asked him to endorse a check. Zamrzla further testified
that on this and other occasions he would give employees a
check to endorse merely as a receipt and then pay them in
cash.
Zamrzla denied that any employees were paid partially
in cash and partially by check other than Williams and
Douglas Cooke. He contends that Williams and Cooke
sometimes performed work for Respondent as subcontrac-
tors and it was for this work that he paid them in cash.
Respondent would supply the material and load the roof.
Williams and Cooke would then apply the roofing at a flat
rate.'2 Since there is no evidence to indicate whether these
cash payments were only partial payments, initial payments
or redemption of insufficient fund checks, I find that the
evidence is insufficient to establish that these other employ-
ees were paid cash under the same arrangement as existed
with Williams and Cooke.
10 Several times Williams inquired of both Zamrzla and his wife as to
whether they were reporting sufficient hours to the trust funds for him. Each
time they assured him that they were.
I Rangel testified through an interpreter. Also, a fellow employee inter-
preted for him during this conversation.
" Zamrzla testified that he does not know whether Williams has a contrac-
tor's license, and that Cooke used Zamnrla's license.
Williams testified that in September. Zamrzla told him he
was not going to sign a union contract and that he wanted
Williams to remain in Respondent's employ. lie said he
would ensure that they had insurance coverage. Zamrzla
further said that the Union did not do that much for them.
that they were going to work without being hassled by the
Union. As to health insurance. Zamrzla said that Williams
would not have to worry about getting in sufficient hours.
that as long as one paid the premiums. one received the
benefits.
Williams quit his employmen: with Respondent in Sep-
tember. Rangel quit in October. 'Ihey both testified that
they quit because Respondent withdrew recognition from
the Union. They both also testified that another reason that
the' quit was because of the insufficient funds payroll
checks.
B. Facts ats o Re.pontdcent's Economi Dnfi''e
Zamrzla testified that Respondent has been having finan-
cial difficulties for 3 or 4 years. These difficulties flow in
part from a contract on a particular job, herein referred to
as the Zapata job, which started in 1974. Zamrzla testified
that in the fiscal year ending June 30(). 1976. Respondent
suffered an out-of-pocket loss on the job of about $140,(00)0.
During this time Respondent experienced a critical cash
flow problem resulting in numerous checks being dishon-
ored by the bank for lack of funds. Payroll checks were not
honored on an almost weekly basis.
During 1976 and 1977. Respondent became delinquent in
payments to material suppliers. As a result these suppliers
either stopped extending credit to Respondent or extended
credit only on a limited job-by-job basis. Currently Respon-
dent's principal supplier is Modern Materials Incorporated.
Certain unaudited financial statements were introduced
into evidence by Respondent through Sol Roniss, an out-
side accountant retained by Respondent. They show, inter
alia, the following for the fiscal ears ending on June 30,
1974-77 and the 6-month period ending December 31.
Balances
6/30/74 6/30/75 6/3076 6/30/77 12/31/77
Cash in ank $ 6,586 $(5,217) $(6,346) $(9,757) 96)
(overdrai t)
Current assets 13/ 288,510 266,691 314,751 295,116 285,176
Current lia- 249,117 255,689 452,811 412,662 400,875
bilities 14/
Retained earn- 28,679 36,695 (100,327) (70,716) (73,792)
ings
(deticlt) /
Addition(reduction) 17,104 6,353 (145,895) 29,611 ( 3,076)
to retained
earnings
Union osts 30,679 32,017 35,311 40,296 3,312
Salaries- 26,000 26,000 20,000 24,500 12,500U
ofticer 16/
6Lros rctiits 163,338 153,712 101,568 142,644 46,852
Iet incoine(loss) 17,104 6,353 (145,985) 29,611 17/ (2,918)
13 Current assets are all assets expected to be converted to cash within the
period of a year.
14 Current liabilities are those liabilities which are expected to he paid
within a year.
I' Retained earnings are the profits after income taxes, that are reinvested
into the business. It is a cumulative figure which starts with the first ear of
operations
i This refers to Zamrzla's salary
17 The accountant's note on this item reads. "Federal income tax liability
on current ear's earnings were offset by prior ear loss carrsoser."
504
WESTERN PA('IFIC ROOFING CORPORATION
Stephen H. Anderson, of Modern Materials, testified that
over the last 2 or 3 years. Respondent had become delin-
quent in the payment of its account with Modern until by
1977 Respondent's overdue account was approximately
$25,000. During this period. Modern severely curtailed the
amount of credit extended to Respondent. In Jul or Au-
gust, Anderson met with Zamrzla concerning this account
and his line of credit. Anderson pointed out Respondent's
poor financial position and suggested that Respondent
would have to make some major changes in its operations.
Zamrzla agreed and said he had a plan. His plan as out-
lined to Anderson was to substantially discontinue new
work and to engage primarily in recover work. Therefore,
Zamrzla explained, he would not be required to use union
help as he would be on new work and this would substan-
tially increase his profits. Anderson said, "In other words.
you are only going to do work which you personally can
oversee." Zamrzla said, "Yes." Anderson said, on those
conditions, Modern would extend credit to Respondent.
Although Anderson kept referring to Respondent being
nonunion as a condition of extending credit, it is apparent
from his testimony as a whole that his interest was in Re-
spondent restricting itself primarily to recover work, and
that he agreed to extend credit to Respondent on the basis
of Zamrzla's representation that he would engage primarily
in recover work." On redirect. Anderson testified that he
told Zamrzla that he was interested in Respondent becom-
ing a recover contractor and to ensure that Respondent
would not get into new work, he did not want Respondent
to be union.
Anderson testified that he did not recall exactly when the
conversation occurred, but thinks it was in August. Zamrzla
testified that in August, Anderson did begin to extend Re-
spondent additional credit, however, he did not reach
agreement with Anderson on an unlimited line of credit
until after he sent his letter attempting to withdraw from
the multiemployer bargaining unit, perhaps as late as Octo-
ber. He further testified that he first presented his plan to
Anderson in the latter part of July. At that time Anderson
requested more details on Respondent's accounts payable
and accounts receivable. This was delivered to him at a
meeting during the course of the strike.
Anderson testified that in managing the line of credit ex-
tended to Respondent, he periodically reviews Respon-
dent's financial reports. He further testified that Respon-
dent had an exceptionally weak balance sheet even prior to
the Zapata job, that it made money one year and lost it the
next, and that Respondent did not appear to be reasonably
adept in managing the credit liability that was being ex-
tended.
Zamrzla testified that Respondent could not survive un-
der the financial burdens of the new collectise-bargaining
agreement. According to him, survival as a union contrac-
1i It is apparent from Anderson's testimony that he considers recover work
to be more profitable and that he does not consider that Respondent has the
organization or management expertise to efficiently and profitably handle
commercial jobs.
tor would have been possible only if negotiations had re-
suited in certain decreases in the economic cost of the
agreement. According to Zamrzla, Respondent was seeking
a piecework rate for tile and composition shingle work a
free travel zone which would encompass the three counties
covered by the agreement: crew size modification to two
men for 50 squares: and a temporary helper or preappren-
tice classification with a wage rate of $4.50 an hour for
work other than actual roofing application and no, or mini-
mal. fringe benefits.?
However, the testimony of both Zamrzla and Rivera
show that whatever argument Zamrzla made as to Respon-
dent's individual need for these provisions, was made
within the RCA negotiating ('ommittee, not at the negotia-
tion table. Nor did Respondent. prior to September 15, in-
form the Union that it wished to negotiate separately from
RCA or that it was in dire financial straits. Also, when
Zamrzla refused to sign the new agreement he did not plead
dire economic difficulty.2" Although Zamrzla tesitified that
at some time prior to negotiations he made an extensive
survey on piecework done b carpenters and discussed with
Rivera his thinking as to piecework, he does not contend.
and there is no evidence, that this discussion was couched
in terms of Respondent's economic survival.:
Zamrzla also testified that the only change in Respon-
dent's financial position between the commencement of ne-
gotiations and its attempted withdrawal was that Forest
Lumber sued Respondent. Apparently it was for the bal-
ance of Respondent's account with Forest. A default judg-
ment was entered sometime after September 12. Zamrzla is
unsure as to whether the suit was filed prior to Respon-
dent's attempted withdrawal.
Conclusions
It is undisputed that Respondent consented to be bound
by multiemployer bargaining and that Respondent actively
participated in the negotiations which led to the 1977 col-
lective-bargaining agreement. Thus, the threshold issue is
whether circumstances justified Respondent's withdrawal
from the multiemployer bargaining unit after the com-
mencement of negotiations. It is well established that once
the multiemployer bargaining unit is established, the em-
ployer-members and the Union are bound by multiem-
ployer bargaining absent compliance with the rules govern-
ing withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining set forth by
the Board in Retail Associates, Inc., 120 NLRB 388, 393-
394 (1958).
i9 Zamrzla denies that he frequently uses helpers.
20 In this regard, Zamrzla testified that on one occasion he mentioned the
things he did not like about the contract
a1 According to Zamrzla, he is 99 percent sure that piecework was dis-
cussed dunng negotiations. As he recalls the discussion was basically as to
composition shingles, but there was also some discussion as to tile. The
roofers have been striving for jurisdictional control over the tile market
Presently most of the tile work is being done by carpenters on a piecework
basis and almost all of the wooden shingle work is done by carpenters. Many
roofing contractors are using carpenters on a piecework basis. Respondent
was signatory to a carpenter's agreement in 1975 and 1977. He never signed
a new contract following the 1976 expiration of the new carpenters agree-
ment.
505
I)0 ('ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In Retail Associates, the Board stated. that the stability
requirements of the Act dictate that reasonable controls
limit the parties as to the time and manner that withdrawal
will he permitted fr,om such a unit. Accordingly, the Board
held that prior to the date set by the contract tIr modifica-
tion, or to the agreed-upon date to commence negotiations,
withdrawal can only be effected by an unequivocal written
notice expressing a sincere intent to abandon, with relative
permanency, the multiemployer unit, and to embrace a dill
ferent course of bargaining on an individual employer basis.
Once actual bargaining negotiations on a multiemployer
basis have begun, withdrawal can be effected only on the
basis of' "mutual consent" or when "unusual circum-
stances" are present. Here the attempted withdrawal came
after the final negotiation session and prior to ratification of
the agreement by the union membership. Also, there is no
"mutual consent."
Respondent contends that "unusual circumstances"
exist-specifically the existence of a bargaining impasse, the
fragmentation or dissipation, of the multiemployer bargain-
ing unit, and dire economic circumstances which threaten
Respondent's existence as a viable business entity. I find the
first two contentions without merit. The Board has consis-
tently rejected the contention that a bargaining impasse
constitutes the requisite "unusual circumstances." Hi-Wa i'
Billboards, Inc., 206 NLRB 22 (1973); Bill Cook Buick. Inc.,
224 NLRB 1094 (1976): Charles D. Bonano Linen Service.
Inc., 229 NLRB 629 (1977). Although four circuit courts of
appeal have rejected the Board's rationale in this regard, I
am bound by the decisions of the Board. Insurance Agents
International Union, AFL CIO (Prudential Insurance Com-
pany of America), 119 NLRB 768 (1957). As to the second
contention, there is insufficient evidence to support any dis-
sipation of the unit. Of the 31 employers in the unit, 6,
including Respondent, attempted to withdraw after the fi-
nal negotiation session. The Union did not consent to any
of these withdrawals. Clearly. this does not constitute a
fragmentation of the unit.
Respondent cites Connell Typeselling Company. et al., 212
NLRB 918, 921 (1974) as holding that withdrawal was jus-
tified by the combined effect of several factors-impasse
and substantial reduction of the unit. Respondent errs in its
reliance on Connell. In that case, the Board specifically
based no finding on impasse or any factor other than the
reduction of the size and strength of the unit. There, of the
36 employers with a total complement of 209 employees, 23
employers with 173 employees, had either completely with-
drawn from the unit or had signed interim or individual
agreements which, in effect, constituted a withdrawal of
their strength from the unit. In these circumstances, the
Board concluded:
The Board is always concerned as to stability in the
collective-bargaining relationship. However, in our
opinion, ths unit has, with the consent of the Union,
been so reduced in size and strength that it would be
unfair and harmful to the collective-bargaining process
to require Respondents to continue in a unit merely
because the Union, which consented to the withdrawal
of so many others, is unwilling to consent to their with-
drawal. In these unusual circumstances we conclude
that Respondents were not required to remain within
the multiemploher bargaining-unit.
Such is not the situation here where the Union has not
consented to the attempted withdrawals by 6 of the 31 em-
ployers and no interim agreements have been signed by any
unit employers.2
Respondent's principal argument is that its withdrawal
was justified b extreme financial hardship threatening its
existence as a viable business entity. Specifically. Respon-
dent argues that it was insolvent at the time it withdrew
from the unit and that it could only become solvent and a
viable economic unit by drastically changing its method of'
operations from large. commercial contracts to recover
work.21 This allegedly involved totally different economic
circumstances and pricing structure, making the continu-
ation of the business under union regulations and union
scale impossible because it would not be competitive.
Respondent defines insolvency as the inability of one to
pay ones debts as they become due in the ordinary course
and contend that even though it had not filed a petition fitr
bankruptcy, it would have been entitled to do so under the
Bankruptcy Act. It could not pay its bills as rithey became
due, credit was no longer extended to it by its suppliers, and
its checks were returned due to insufficient funds. Thus,
Respondent concludes, it would be manifestly unjust to
punish Respondent for its willingness to continue opera-
tions and to attempt to continue its business in spite of the
extreme financial hardship it was suffering.
Finally. Respondent argues. it made every effort to make
an arrangement with the Union which would solve the par-
ticular financial problems and continued to be willing to
negotiate with the Union on an individual basis after its
n2 Respondent contends that an interim agreement was signed by one em-
ployer-member. Federal Roofing. However, ederal Roofing is not listed by
RCA as an employer-member. Respondent contends that it is. since it is
owned by the same owner as Robert Nichols. Inc., who is a member. Even
assuming that Federal Roofing was a member. its signing of an nterim
agreement can hardly be deemed to have an adverse impact on the integrity
of the unit.
23 The Union argues that Respondent's alleged financial condition is ques-
tionable since Zamrzla was involved in related transactions with other enti-
ties owned and controlled by him. Western Pacific Roofing of California is
owned by Zamrzla. According to Roniss, it is a paper corporation used for
expense-saving purposes. It operates solely as a labor-providing unit .hose
net profit ranges between 0 and $600. All labor expenses and officer's salaries
are paid through this corporation Western Pacific of Orange Counts. also
engaged in roofing construction, is equally owned by Zamrzla and his
brother-in-law, Zig Hall. According to Zamrzla, he exerts no active control
over Western Pacific of Orange County. It is managed solely by Hall. At
times Respondent subcontracts work to Western Pacific of Orange County
and vice versa. According to Zamrzla, when this occurs, the corporation
doing the work bills the other corporation in the same manner that a stran-
ger would be billed, and the other corporation would pay in the same man-
ner that it would pay a stranger. Williams testified that in June. July, and
August, Respondent sent him and his crew. at various times, to work for
Western Pacific of Orange County. On these occasions, he would drive either
his own truck or Respondent's truck. Materials would he delivered to the
jobsite by Respondent's trucks and he was paid in cash by Respondent.
506
WESTERN PACIFI( RO()FIN( (()ORPO)RA IION
withdrawal from the multiemploer bargaining unit, hut
the l'nion refused to cooperate in any manner.
In the cears since Retail 4 sit,( ilr, vtq)ra. the Board has
had a number of occasions to consider its ''unusual circuml-
stances" rationale. These cases were revieed in li-ill',v
Billboard where the Board stated at p. 23:
In cases after Retail 4.slsiate. slupr,. the Board has
limited application of the term "unusual circum-
stances" to those cases in which the withdrawing em-
ployer has been faced with dire economic circum-
stances. i.e.. circumstances in which the ver, existence
of an employer as a viable business entit\ has ceased or
is about to cease. Thus the Board has held thait ;n
employer may withdraw from a multiemploer bar-
gaining association after negotiations with the union
have begun where the emplo\er is subject to extreme
economic difficulties which result in an arrangement
under the bankruptcy laws:b where the employer is
faced with the imminent prospect of such adverse eco-
nomic conditions as would require it to close its plant:i
or where the employer is faced with the prospect of
being forced out of business tor lack of qualified em-
ployees to do the job and the union refuses to assist the
employer by providing replacements or the employees
he lost.,
The Board has refused to permit an employer to
withdraw from a multiemployer bargaining association
when an employer states he has a good-taith doubt as
to the continued majority status of the union where the
claim is limited to his own employees:' all of the em-
ployer's employees whom the union represented were
discharged;"' the union entered into separate agree-
ments with individual employer members of the associ-
ation;" ' the employer has been suspended from the as-
sociation because it failed to pay its dues:' 2 the
employer was subject to a strike;'' or the employer suf-
fered a sharp decline in its business.'" In the foregoing
instances. the Board has found that there was no likeli-
hood that the employer's continued existence as a via-
ble business entity was jeopardized and. theretfore the
employer's withdrawal could not be excused on the
ground of "unusual circumstances."
6 US Lingerie Corporation 170 NI.RB 750. 751.
' Spun-Jee (Corp., and the James Tettile Corp. 171 NL RB 557. 558
'Atlas Electrical Service Co., 176 NLRB 827, 830
9 Sheridan Creations. Inc.. 148 NLRB 1503. 1505 06
to The John J. Corbett Press, Inc, 163 Nl.RB 154. n. 8
WE Painters, Inc. 176 N.RB 964. 965 966
" Senco. Inc, 177 NLRB 882, 886
1 State Electric Service. Inc, 198 NL.RB 592.
14 Sen-All Comparnyi Inc.. 199 NLRB 1131.
Thus. the critical question is whether the ver) existence
of an employer has ceased or such cessation is imminent.
Mere business inconvenience or economic hardship. or ap-
prehension that bargaining is progressing toward an agree-
ment which would be economically burdensome, inability
to maintain a competitive position or other business exigen-
cies will not justify an untimely withdrawal from group
bargaining. Siebler Hearing & Air Condiioning, In.. 219
NLRB 1124 (1975); Serv-AIl Companv, In.. 199 NLRB
1131 (1972). (T. Spun-JvcC (ot7oralni, ut'a. I '.. I, i'ecrie
( 'Er'orllll. QWt1t'tL
Respondent contends that its situation falls withiln the
anibit of Splll-J.i't' and ( . ting'crc. I o lot aree. In
Sputi-Jet. the assoclatillon h d Intl rlle the u loril ret' orc tlhe
commnIencemenlt Itl negotiatiolns that [te emlloler in tle
industry in the geographicall area were acini a ditlicult ii-
nancial stuation. When it became appirent that tIhe union
would not chalnge its hbargaining stance in order to alleviate
this fiiancial plight. the respondents therein separately ad-
vised the union thIat without the special consideration the,
sought continuancee (1o their o, n operation u nder the ex-
isting contract regardless of' association bargaillning they
could not continue to operate in the area. Neertheless, the
union remained intransigent in its refusal to accord anll\
special consideration. Thereafter, the respondents wit hdrew
from group bargaining and relocated outside the reta.
In I.S. I.inreric. the emploer had filed a petition for an
arrangement pursuant to the Bainkruptc_ A\ct ad notified
the union of' its financial difficult' and sought some special
consideration from the uiiion until its business imnproed.
The Board found that the employer's xv ithlas al tin from
group bargaining was justified in the circumstances in-
cluding the fact that the employer withdrew in order to
relocate outside of the geographical area, the emploer un-
successfully sought help from the union in its effort to ox er-
come its economic difficult., the employer's status 'x as that
of a debtor in possession under the bankruptcy laus. and
that the emplo(er's intention to relocate its plant raised
issues inherently more amenable to resolution through col-
lective bargaining confined to the parties directly involved
than to group bargaining.
Contrar: to the circumstances in those cases. here cessa-
tion of Respondent' s existence is not imminent. In the cir-
cumstlances herein the nega;ltle ratio of Responldent's cur-
rent assets to its current liabilities do not portend imminent
doom. Respondent has exlsted on shak Iina ncial grolund
for a long time. Ne ertheless it managed to suriLve for
some 2 to 3 ,ears in spite of' the loss occasioned by the
Zapata job, its cash flow problems reflected b its chronic
bank overdrafts. and the severe curtailment and cessation
of credit extended by its principal suppliers. Moreover. ac-
cording to Anderson. whom I credit in this regard. Respon-
dent had a history of many years standing of seesawing
between operating at a profit and operating at a loss.
At the time of its attempted withdrawal. Respondent's
financial outlook had definitel) improved. It made a profit
during the fiscal year which ended in June. A principal
supplier had reinstated an open line of credit to Respon-
dent, and the nion had made significant economic conces-
sions during the negotiations.
Furthermore, the legitimacy of Respondent's economic
defense is placed in serious doubt by its failure to notifs the
Union of any financial difficulties prior to or during the
course of the negotiations. or to inform the Union that its
refusal to sign the agreement was based on financial diffi-
culties. Tulsa Sheet Metail Works, Inc., 149 NL RB 1487
1488 (1964). ent'd. 367 F.2d 55, 58 ( lOth 'ir. 1966). 4cme
I)(ECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wire Workx, Inc., 229 NLRB 333 (1977). In all of the cir-
cumstances, I find that "unusual circumstances" do not
exist which would justify Respondent's untimely with-
drawal from group bargaining.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by its untimely attempt to with-
draw from the multiemployer bargaining and by, its refusal
to sign, and abide by the collective-bargaining agreement
negotiated by RCA and the Unions and effective as of Au-
gust 15. 1977.
I further find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (I) of the Act by unilaterally changing the wage rates
of its employees: by failing to appropriately report the total
hours worked by unit employees, and to remit to the appro-
priate benefit funds contributions on behalf of unit employ-
ees as prescribed in the collective-bargaining agreement in
effect at the time involved;2" and by entering into an ar-
rangement directly with Williams and Cooke for payment
of wages in derogation of the provisions of the collective-
bargaining agreement, and of the Union's status as exclu-
sive bargaining representative. "
The complaint alleges that Respondent illegally dis-
charged Williams and Rangel. I find that Williams and
Rangel quit their employment with Respondent primarily
because Respondent repudiated the collective-bargaining
agreement. Accordingly, I find that they were construc-
tively discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act. Marquis Elevator Company. Inc., 217 NLRB 461
(1975); Superior Sprinkler, Inc., and William Augusto d/h/a
William Augusto Fire Protection Service, 227 NLRB 204
(1976).
Finally, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by attempting to persuade Williams to abandon the
Union and remain in Respondent's employ by promising
him better working conditions if he did so. Gulf States Can-
ners, Inc., 224 NLRB 1566 (1976).
CON(CI.USIONS OF LANW
I. RCA, and its employer-members including Respon-
dent, are employers engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2), (6). and (7) of the Act.
2. The Unions, each is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All employees employed by the employer-members of
RCA in the job classification set forth in the collective-
bargaining agreement between the Unions and RCA, effec-
tive from August 15, 1974. to August 15. 1977. constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein the Union, within its terri-
torial jurisdiction, has been, and is now, the exclusive repre-
25
N.L.R.B. v. Joseph T Strong d/b/a Strong Roofing and Insulating Co.,
393 U.S. 357 (1969). Goodsell d Vocke, Inc., 223 NLRB 60 (1976).
6 Bueter Bakery Corporation and Albert Kelly, Receiver in Bankruptcy, 223
NLRB 888 (1976). Everbrite Electric Signs, Inc., 222 NLRB 679, 684 (1976).
21 Both Rangel and Williams state that another reason they quit was the
payroll checks written on insufficient funds. In view of the fact that Williams
had continued in Respondent's employ for more than a year and Rangel for
several months in spite of such checks, I find that their quitting was precipi-
tated by the repudiation of the contract.
sentative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit
for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning
of' Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By repudiating the agreement that RCA negotiated
with the Unions effective from August 15, 1977. to August
15, 1980, in said multiemployer bargaining unit; by un-
timely withdrawal from said unit: by unilaterally changing
the wage rate and discontinuing the payments to the var-
ious benefit funds and the reporting of total hours worked
by its employees as required by the collective bargaining
agreement described above, and the preceding agreement;
and by making direct arrangements with employees fbr
payment of wages in derogation of the provisions of the
collective-bargaining agreement and the Union's status as
exclusive bargaining representative, Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. By constructively discharging employees Willie Wil-
liams and Simon Rangel. Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act.
7. By attempting to persuade employees to abandon the
Union and remain in Respondent's employ by promising
them better working conditions if they did so. Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THlE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(l). (3),
and (5) of the Act. I shall recommend that Respondent be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
I have found that Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, inter alia, by its untimely with-
drawal from the multiemployer bargaining unit, and by re-
pudiating the collective-bargaining agreement effective
from August 15. 1977, to August 15, 1980. between RCA
and the Unions. I shall therefore recommend that Respon-
dent recognize and bargain with the Union. within its terri-
torial jurisdiction as the exclusive bargaining representative
of its employees in the multiemployer bargaining unit
found appropriate herein, that. upon request by the Union.
it sign said agreement and comply with the terms and con-
ditions thereof, both retroactively and for the balance of its
term, including making payments to the Union Roofers de-
pository for the health and welfare fund and the various
other benefit funds as prescribed in said collective-bargain-
ing agreement; make whole the employees in the appropri-
ate unit for any loss of wages or other benefits they may
have suffered as a result of Respondent's unlawful refusal to
bargain: and make the payments to the various benefit
funds as prescribed in the 1974 77 agreement which Re-
spondent did not make as a result of its wage agreement
with Williams and Cooke.
I have also found that Respondent constructively dis-
charged Simon Rangel and Willie Williams in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. It is therefore recom-
mended that Respondent offer each of them immediate and
full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer
508
WEiSTIRN PACIFIC ROOFIN(; (ORPORA'ION
exists, to a subhstantiall equisalent position without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. and make
each ot them whole for any loss of pay suffered b reason of
the discrimination against him. All backpay is to he conm-
puted with interest thereon in the manner prescribed in
1 . H1 looltorlh (Compatlv, 90 NL R B 289 (1950). and fIlor-
ida St'el (orporation. 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
Uipon the basis of the foregoing indings of fact and con-
clusions otf law. and upon the entire record and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act. I herebh issue the following recoim-
mended:
OR[)ER >R
The Respondent. Western Pacific Roofing Corporation.
Bell. California. its officers. agents, successors, and assigns.
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectivel with the inion as
the exclusive representative, in its territorial jurisdiction of
Respondent's employees in the fitllowing appropriate unit:
All employees emplosed b the emploer-leimbers ot
the RCA in the job classification set forth in the collec-
tive bargaining agreement between the inions and
RCA, effective from August 15, 1974 to August 15I
1977.
(b) Withdrawing from said multiemployer hargaining
unit except upon adequate written notice given prior to the
date set bhy the contract for modification, or to the agreed-
upon date to begin the multiemploer negotiations: or ex-
cept at such other time it may lawfully withdraw.
(c) Refusing to sign, and acknowledge that it is bound by
the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement between
the Unions and RCA effective August 15 1977.
(d) Unilaterally changing the wage rate and discontinu-
ing making payments to the various henefit funds and the
reporting of total hours worked bh its emploees s re-
quired bh said collective-bargaining agreements.
(e) Dealing directl and individuall ' with unit emplo!-
ees in derogation of the Union's status as exclusive collec-
live-bargaining representative.
(f) Unlawftull discharging its employees.
(g) Attempting to persuade its employees to abando n the
2 See, generally. Isr Plumbing & Helilng (o. 138 NlRB 716 I19621
29 In the event no exceptions are filed as presided h Sec 1112.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, e adopted bh the Hoard and beconme its
findings. conclusions, and Order. .iand ll objeciions thereto shall he deemed
waived for all purposes.
U!nion and remain in Respondent's emplo by promising
employees better working conditions it' the' did so.
(h) In a other manner interferinig with. restrailing , or
coercing its employees in the exercise ot' their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. lake the folloing atirmati e action designed to ef-
tiectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) i orthwith sign. and acknowledge that It is bund hb
the terms of', the collecti e-harga;ining aIgreement het een
the U nions an d RK(A ettfctive August Is. 1977 and cor-
pl with the terms and conditions thereof. both retroac-
tiel! and for the balance tof its term. aind l;ake stch paisi-
ments to the union roofters lepositoiry or the arious
benefit funds as prescribed in said .igreemenl. and the pre-
ceding agreement as set forth in the remed! section herein.
(bf Make its employees whole for an! loss of , ages aind
benefit the: ma's have suttered as a result of its failur to
compy with the terms and conditions of the ahbo e-de-
scribed agreement in the manner set forth ill the section
herein entitled "The Remled."
(c) Offer Willie Williams and Simon Ranuel immlediate
and full reinstatement to their tformer positions or i those
positions no longer exist. to substantiall equi alelt posi-
tions. without prejudice to their seniorit or other rights
and privileges.
(d) Make Willie Williams and Simon Rangel , hole tor
anll loss of pay they man hav e suftterd bh reason of the
discrimination against them in the manner set orth in the
section herein entitled "1 he Rented."
(e) Preser, e and. upon reasonable request. niake a ail-
able to the Board and its agents, for exanlinattion aind cop!-
ing, all payroll records. and reports alnd all ther records
required to ascertain the amounts. it an, of' il h; ackpa
due under the terms of this recommended ()rder.
(t) Post at its place of business in Bell. ('aliiornia. copies
of the att;lched notice marked "'Appendi. " ''' (Copies of said
notice. on forms provided hN the Regional Director tr Re-
gion 21. after being dul; signed by its authorized represent-
ative. shall be posted b Respondent inmmediately upon re-
ceipt thereof.i and be maintained hb it for 60 cnsecuti e
days thereafter. in conspicuous places. including all places
where notices to employ ees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken b Respondent to insure that said
notices are nt altered. defaced or covered bv any other
material.
(g) Notif the Regional Director f;Or Region 21, in writ-
ing. within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
'n In the eent that this Order is enforced b ; a Judgment of a niled
States Court of Appeals. the words n the notlce reading "Posted hb Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted P'llrsuant to a Judg-
ment of the I nited States Court of Appeals i-nhfrcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Rela;ions Board
S(9