A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 28, 2011

28-CA-023502 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 28, 2011)

JD(SF)–52-11
Las Vegas, NV
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION OF JUDGES
A.W. FARRELL & SON, INC.
and Cases 28-CA-023502
28-CA-060627
28-CA-062301
UNITED UNION OF ROOFERS, WATERPROOFERS,
AND ALLIED WORKERS, LOCAL 162
SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO, LOCAL UNION NO. 88
Party-in-Interest
Pablo A. Godoy, Atty., Las Vegas, Nevada for General Counsel.
David Rosenfeld and Manuel Boigues, Attys., Weinberg,
Roger & Rosenfeld, for Charging Party.
Julie Pace and Heidi Nunn-Gilman, Attys., The Cavanaugh Law Firm,
Phoenix, Arizona, for Respondent.
DECISION
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LANA H. PARKE, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to unfair labor practice charges
filed by United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Workers, Local 162 (the Union), the
Regional Director of Region 28 of the National Labor Relations Board (Region 28 and the
Board, respectively) issued Second Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing (complaint)
dated September 28, 2011.1 The complaint alleges that A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc. (Respondent)
violated Sections 8(a) (1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).2 The complaint
further names Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 88
(Sheet Metal Workers) is a party in interest. This case was tried in Las Vegas, Nevada on
October 24 and 25.
II. Issues
A. Was the collective bargaining relationship between Respondent and the Union
one permitted under Section 8(f) of the Act or one covered by 9(a) of the Act.

1 All dates herein are 2011 unless otherwise specified.
2 At the hearing, Counsel for the General Counsel amended paragraph 5(d) to substitute the date of
June 27 for June 29 and the name Progressive Roofing with “Respondent,” further amending ensuing
complaint paragraphs to comport with that change.
JD(SF)–52-11
2
B. Did Respondent violate Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by the following
conduct:
1. Repudiating the terms of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Union.
2. Withdrawing recognition of the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit employees described hereafter, and since then 5
failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.
3. Refusing to furnish the Union with requested information necessary for, and
relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees.
4. Delaying in furnishing the Union with requested information, i.e., the names of 10
workers involved in the projects described above.
5. Maintaining an overly broad limitation on the use of the information furnished
to the Union by requiring the written consent of its attorney to “copy, release,
or distribute” the information it furnished to the Union.
15
III. JURISDICTION
At all material times Respondent, a New York corporation, with an office and place of
business in Las Vegas, Nevada (Respondent’s facility), has been engaged in business as a
commercial roofing contractor in the building and construction industry. During the 12-month 20
period ending May 10, Respondent, in conducting its business operations, performed services
valued in excess of $50,000 in states other than the State of Nevada. Respondent admits, and I
find, that at all material times Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and the Union has been a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.25
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On the entire record,3 including my observation of the demeanor of witnesses, and after
considering the briefs filed by General Counsel and Respondent, I find the following events 30
occurred in the circumstances described below during the period relevant to these proceedings.
Unless otherwise explained, findings of fact herein are based on party admissions, stipulations,
and uncontroverted testimony.
The following individuals in the following positions are Respondent’s 35
supervisors/managers germane to the issues herein:
William Farrell (Farrell) - Owner
Wade Landrum (Landrum) - Branch Manager
40
On about June 25, 2007, Respondent purchased assets of Progressive Roofing, Inc.
(Progressive Roofing), a company performing construction work in Las Vegas, Nevada, and
thereafter operated the business in basically unchanged form, employing as a majority of its

3 Post hearing, the parties jointly sought to supplement the evidentiary record with a letter from
counsel for the Charging Party to counsel for Respondent, dated September 29, 2011, which responds
to Respondent's September 14, 2011 letter previously marked for identification as Joint Exhibit 11.
The letter from counsel for the Charging Party to counsel for Respondent dated September 29, 2011
was added to the record as Joint Exhibit 13.
.
JD(SF)–52-11
3
employees, individuals who were previously employees of Progressive Roofing. On June 27,
2007, Farrell, on behalf of Respondent, entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the
Union to cover a unit of those employees who had formerly been employed by Progressive
Roofing. The collective-bargaining agreement had a term of August 1, 2005 through July 31,
2007, only a few days of which remained when Farrell signed the agreement (the 2005-2007 5
agreement). The 2005-2007 agreement covered the following employees of Respondent, which
employees constituted, and continue to constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective-bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act (the unit):
All regular full-time and part-time skilled roofer and damp and waterproof workers, 10
including apprentices, pre-apprentices, allied workers, other classifications of
workers and any person performing the duties of all safety monitoring of work,
excluding managers, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The recognition clause of the 2005-2007 agreement (the 2005-2007 recognition clause) 15
read in pertinent part as follows:
A.W. FARRELL & SON...hereby voluntarily recognizes [the Union] as the majority
collective bargaining representative of all employees employed by said Contractor
performing work covered by this agreement and agrees that the Union has 20
demonstrated or it has offered to demonstrate that it is the majority representative of
such employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit after having made such a
demand. By executing this agreement A.W. FARRELL & SON specifically agrees that
it is establishing a collective bargaining relationship within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the National Labor Relations Act of 1947, as amended based upon its majority 25
representation status as described above.
Later in 2007, Farrell, on behalf of Respondent, entered into a collective bargaining
agreement with the Union to succeed the 2005-2007 agreement. The successor agreement
had a term of August 1, 2007 through July 31, 2010 (the 2007-2010 agreement). The 30
recognition clause of the 2007-2010 agreement (the 2007-2010 recognition clause) was
essentially identical to that of the 2005-2007 recognition clause. Following Farrell’s execution of
the 2007-2010 agreement, Respondent implemented and adhered to its terms and conditions
as to all unit employees.
35
In 2010, Respondent, for bargaining convenience, met jointly with the Union and several
other contractors to negotiate the terms of a collective bargaining contract to succeed the 2007-
2010 agreement (the convenience bargaining). Paul McKellar (McKellar), a representative of
one of the contractors served as spokesperson for the group. Each contractor had the option of
deciding on an individual basis whether to execute any agreement resulting from the 40
convenience bargaining. Landrum attended all negotiating sessions as Respondent’s bargaining
representative.
Landrum told union representatives that Farrell had to approve any final agreement. By
email dated August 4, 2010, Landrum informed McKellar:45
Please be aware that no signatory contractor speaks on behalf of AW Farrell and that...I
have no authority to sign a new contract. Once the proposed contract is presented for
review it will go to the corporate office for consideration.
50
JD(SF)–52-11
4
On August 17, 2010, the convenience bargaining resulted in a successor agreement to
the 2007-2010 agreement, the terms of the successor agreement were to run September 1,
2010 through July 31, 2012 (the 2010-2012 agreement). Each of the convenience bargaining
contractors except Respondent thereafter executed the 2010-2012 agreement. Landrum told
union representatives he would forward the terms of the proposed successor agreement to 5
Farrell, and, if Farrell approved it, Landrum would sign it. Farrell did not approve the successor
agreement.
In the following months, union business manager Modesto Gaxiola (Gaxiola) contacted
Farrell about signing the 2010-2012 agreement. Farrell told Gaxiola Respondent was having 10
“issues” with the Sheet Metal Workers but once those issues were resolved, he would have
Landrum contact Gaxiola. Respondent continued to operate under the terms of the expired
2007-2010 agreement.
Beginning in April, the following letter exchange, in pertinent part, took place between 15
the parties:
Respondent to the Union, April 28: Respondent withdrew recognition of the Union as the
exclusive collective bargaining representative of the Unit, stating: “[Respondent] has
elected not to renew its collective bargaining agreement with [the Union] pursuant to 20
Section 8(f)...and will terminate its relationship with [the Union].” Since then,
Respondent has failed and refused to recognize and/or bargain with the Union.
The Union to Respondent, July 29: the Union requested Respondent to furnish the
Union with the following information (July 29 information request): 25
(1) ... up-to date list of all projects which your company has performed for the
period July 1, 2009 to present, giving the location, the names of the workers
involved and the dates of the project.
...30
(3) ... a list of all employees who work for your company within the bargaining
unit for the period July 1, 2010 to present. For each employee give the dates
of employment, rates of pay, classifications, last known addresses and phone
numbers.
35
Respondent to the Union, August 10:
With respect to the [July 29 information request], we do not see its relevance to
collective bargaining and you did not explain the union’s purported need for this
information...Nevertheless, Farrell will entertain the request if you wish to set forth 40
your rationale for the relevance of the information to collective bargaining.
The Union to Respondent, August 18: the Union asserted the information asked for in
the July 29 information request was presumptively relevant, as it affected bargaining unit
employees.45
Respondent to the Union, September 14:
Although you have declined to share information with us regarding the reasons and
relevance of [the July 29 information request], we understand that the issue is that 50
Local 162 believes that non-union labor may have been used to perform work.
JD(SF)–52-11
5
Although the Company has no duty to respond to Local 162’s request for information
because Local 162 no longer represents AW Farrell employees after the termination
of the 8(f) agreement and there was never a 9(a) bargaining relationship, we are
cooperating with Local 162 and enclosing a list of all non-supervisory employees
who worked on projects for AW Farrell from July 1, 2009 to the present.5
Respondent included a spreadsheet setting out the names, hire and termination dates,
addresses, classifications, and rates of pay of employees who had worked for
Respondent since July 1, 2009, i.e., some of the information the Union requested in item
1 of its July 29 information request and the information requested in item 3, excepting 10
phone numbers. The spreadsheet contained the following restriction:
CONFIDENTIAL
Do not Copy, Release or Distribute Without
Written Consent of [Respondent’s attorney]15
The Union to Respondent, September 29:
The Union needs to know the names of the projects and other information regarding
the projects in order to determine whether the contract has been complied with. This 20
will give us some idea as to where workers worked, how long they worked and
whether appropriate pay and contributions were made.
Respondent failed to furnish the rest of the information requested in item 1 of the July 29
information request or retract the restrictions set forth on the September 14 spreadsheet.25
V. Discussion
A. The Union’s Representational Status
30
Section 8(f) permits unions and employers in the construction industry to enter into
collective bargaining agreements without a union having to establish that it has the support of a
majority of the employees in the covered unit.4 Section 8(f) creates an exception to Section
9(a)'s general rule requiring a showing of majority employee support for the union.5 An 8(f)
collective-bargaining agreement is enforceable throughout its term,6 and an employer violates 35

4 Sec. 8(f) of the Act provides, in pertinent part: “It shall not be an unfair labor practice under
subsections (a) and (b) of this section for an employer engaged primarily in the building and
construction industry to make an agreement covering employees engaged (or who, upon their
employment, will be engaged) in the building and construction industry with a labor organization
of which building and construction employees are members … because (1) the majority status
of such labor organization has not been established under the provisions of [Sec.] 9 prior to the
making of such agreement.”
5 Sec. 9(a) states, in pertinent part: “Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of
collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes,
shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment….”
6 John Deklewa & Sons, 282 NLRB 1375, FN 62 (1987), enfd. Sub nom. Iron Workers Local 3 v. NLRB,
843 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1988).
JD(SF)–52-11
6
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to adhere to, or by repudiating an 8(f) agreement
during its term.7
While an 8(f) relationship between an employer and a union may be terminated by either
party upon the expiration of their collective-bargaining agreement,8 a 9(a) relationship (and the 5
concomitant obligation to bargain) continues after contract expiration, unless and until the union
is shown to have lost majority support.9
Representation status under Section 9(a) may be achieved either through a Section 9
certification proceeding or “from voluntary recognition…where that recognition is based on a 10
clear showing of majority support among the unit employees, e.g., a valid card majority.”10 A
9(a) relationship is established where "(1) the union requested recognition as the majority or
9(a) representative of the unit employees; (2) the employer recognized the union as the majority
or 9(a) bargaining representative; and (3) the employer's recognition was based on the union's
having shown, or having offered to show, evidence of its majority support."11 In order to 15
establish voluntary recognition, there must be evidence that “the union unequivocally demanded
recognition as the employees' 9(a) representative” and that “the employer unequivocally
accepted it as such.”12
To establish voluntary recognition, the majority showing need not adhere to formal 20
standards. See Saylor’s Inc., 338 NLRB 330, 334 (2002)13 (9(a) relationship established by
contract provision stating the employer recognized the union as the Section 9(a) representative
based on the union’s having shown evidence of majority support).
The Board has placed the burden of proving that a construction-industry relationship falls 25
under Section 9(a) rather than under 8(f) on the party making that assertion.14 In this case,
Respondent contends that the 2005-2007 and 2007-2010 agreements were entered into under
the auspices of Section 8(f). The General Counsel’s position is that since 2007, Respondent
has had a 9(a) relationship with the Union. The General Counsel, therefore, bears the burden
of showing the existence of a 9(a) relationship between Respondent and the Union. In 30
addressing its burden, the General Counsel adduced evidence of successive agreements—the
2005-2007 agreement and the 2007-2010 agreement—between Respondent and the Union.
Each agreement contained language stating that Respondent “voluntarily recognize[d]” the
Union as the collective bargaining representative of the unit pursuant to the Union’s
demonstration or offer to demonstrate that it was the majority representative of such employees. 35
Both agreements specifically noted that Respondent had thereby established a Section 9(a)
collective bargaining relationship with the Union “based upon its majority representation status.”

7 Horizon Group of New England, 347 795 (2006); See also Madison Industries, Inc., 349 NLRB No.
114, 2007. The same principles apply to a supplemental agreement in which an employer consents to be
bound to a master agreement. Cedar Valley Corp., 302 NLRB 823, 830 (1991).
8 Deklewa, supra at 1386-1387
9 Levitz Furniture Co., 333 NLRB 717 (2001).
10 Deklewa, supra at 1387, FN 53.
11 Staunton Fuel & Material, 335 NLRB 717, 720 (2001).
12 J&R Tile 291 NLRB 1034, 1036 (1988).
13 Citing Central Illinois Construction, 335 NLRB 717 (2001); Pontiac Ceiling & Partition Co., 337
NLRB 120 (2001); Reichenbach Ceiling & Partition Co., 337 NLRB 125 (2001); and Verkler, Inc., 337
NLRB 128 (2001)
14 Donaldson Traditional Interiors, 345 NLRB 1298 (2005); Deklewa, supra at 1385, FN 41; see
also Madison Industries, Inc., supra.
JD(SF)–52-11
7
In Saylor’s Inc., the employer and the union had entered into seriatim collective
bargaining agreements, the recognition language of which stated the employer was satisfied
that the union represented a majority of its unit employees and therefore voluntarily agreed to
recognize the Union as the unit’s exclusive bargaining representative. The employer specifically 5
acknowledged its 9(a) relationship with the union. The Board concluded the contractual
language established a 9(a) relationship between the contracting parties, and challenge to the
union’s 9(a) status occurring more than 6 months after the employer's grant of 9(a) status was
untimely.
10
The clear intent of the 2005-2007 and 2007-2010 recognition clauses is no different than
that evidenced by the contractual language in Saylor’s. Under the Saylor’s ruling, the General
Counsel has met his burden of showing that commencing July 2007, the Union enjoyed a 9(a)
relationship with Respondent as to unit employees. No evidence was presented that the Union
at any time after July 2007 lost its majority employee support. Accordingly, since 2007, 15
Respondent has had a 9(a) obligation to bargain with the Union, which obligation survived the
expiration of the 2007-2010 agreement.
B. Repudiation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and 20
Withdrawal of Recognition
1. Repudiation
General Counsel contends Respondent unlawfully repudiated the terms of its collective-25
bargaining agreement upon withdrawing recognition from the Union. It is not entirely clear
whether General Counsel is referring to the 2007-2010 agreement, the 2010-2012 agreement,
or both. The complaint alleges Respondent repudiated the terms of the 2010-2012 agreement.
General Counsel’s post-hearing statement of issues asks: “Did Respondent violate Section
8(a)(1) and (5) by...refusing to following the terms of the 2007 Collective-Bargaining 30
Agreement,” while General Counsel’s post-hearing sample notice refers to repudiation of the
2010-2012 agreement. I address both agreements.
The evidence, although cursory, is that Respondent continued to follow the terms of the
2007-2010 agreement even after withdrawing recognition from the Union. Insofar as 35
Respondent’s 2011 withdrawal of recognition can be said to repudiate the continuing bargaining
obligations of the 2007-2010 agreement, then Respondent did repudiate those terms, but that
issue is adequately covered in the withdrawal of recognition discussion and conclusion and
need not be addressed here.
40
As to the 2010-2012 agreement reached in the course of convenience bargaining, it
appears Landrum clearly and unambiguously notified the Union that only Farrell could agree to
the final terms of the 2010-2012 agreement. Refusing to sign the 2010-2012 agreement or to
abide by its terms is not, therefore, unlawful. See Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center, 337 NLRB
72, 80 (2001). 45
2. Withdrawal of recognition
On April 28, Respondent withdrew recognition of the Union as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of the unit, basing its entitlement to do so upon the parties’ alleged 50
JD(SF)–52-11
8
8(f) relationship. Since then, Respondent failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the
Union. Having found the Union and Respondent at all material times enjoyed a 9(a) collective
bargaining relationship, Respondent’s withdrawal of recognition was unlawful and violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
5
C. Refusal to Furnish Information
An Employer has a duty to furnish to a union, on request, information that is
relevant and necessary to perform its role as exclusive bargaining representative of unit
employees. Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979). Respondent has 10
stipulated that if Respondent and the Union are found to have had a Section 9(a)
bargaining relationship, the list of projects sought by the Union in its July 29 information
request is relevant. It follows that the concomitant information sought—project locations
and dates and information about the workers involved in such projects—is also relevant.
Respondent’s failure to furnish all information requested in the July 29 information 15
request violated Respondent’s duty to bargain with the Union as enunciated in Section
8(a)(5).
An employer’s unreasonable delay in furnishing relevant information also
violates Section 8(a)(5). The Board considers the totality of circumstances20
surrounding a delay in furnishing information, assessing whether a reasonable good faith effort
to respond to the request as promptly as circumstances allow by taking into account the
complexity and extent of information sought, its availability and the difficulty in retrieving the
information. West Penn Power Co., 339 NLRB 585, 587 (2003), enfd in pertinent part 349 F.3d
233 (4th Cir. 2005). Here, no evidence justifies Respondent’s delay—from July 29 to 25
September 14—in furnishing relevant information that must have been readily available.
Rather, the delay appears related to Respondent’s unlawful withdrawal of recognition. In these
circumstances, the delay in furnishing all relevant information violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
D. Restrictions on Disclosure of Requested Information30
General Counsel argues the limitations Respondent imposed on the Union’s use of the
furnished information are unreasonable and overly broad. Respondent does not address this
issue, resting its defense on the assertion that only a 9(f) relationship existed between the
parties, precluding any obligation to furnish the requested information.35
As required under Detroit Edison v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301 (1979), the Board balances a
union’s need for the information against any “legitimate and substantial” confidentiality interest.
The Board established a determinant test in Pennsylvania Power Co., 301 NLRB 1104, 1105-
1106 (1991):40
The party asserting confidentiality has the burden of proof. Legitimate and substantial
confidentiality and privacy claims will be upheld, but blanket claims of confidentiality will
not. Further, a party refusing to supply information on confidentiality grounds has a duty
to seek an accommodation. Thus, when a union is entitled to information concerning 45
which an employer can legitimately claim a partial confidentiality interest, the employer
must bargain toward an accommodation between the union's information needs and the
employer's justified interests [footnotes omitted].
JD(SF)–52-11
9
Here Respondent neither proved a need for confidentiality nor offered to bargain with the
Union over restrictions. Thus, Respondent’s restrictions on use of the provided information
violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act as alleged.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW5
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Workers, Local 162 is a labor 10
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Since June 27, 2007, the Union has been the Section 9(a) collective bargaining
representative of Respondent’s Las Vegas, Nevada employees in the following appropriate unit:
15
All regular full-time and part-time skilled roofer and damp and waterproof workers,
including apprentices, pre-apprentices, allied workers, other classifications of
workers and any person performing the duties of all safety monitoring of work,
excluding managers, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
20
4. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act as set forth herein.
THE REMEDY
Having found Respondent has violated and is violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I25
recommend it be required to cease and desist from that conduct and to cease and desist from
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act in any other like or related manner. I shall also recommend the posting of
an appropriate notice, attached hereto as "Appendix."15
ORDER30
Respondent, A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain with United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and 35
Allied Workers, Local 162 as the collective bargaining representative of its Las Vegas,
Nevada employees in the following appropriate unit:
All regular full-time and part-time skilled roofer and damp and waterproof workers,
including apprentices, pre-apprentices, allied workers, other classifications of
workers and any person performing the duties of all safety monitoring of work, 40
excluding managers, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.

15 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted
by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(SF)–52-11
10
(b) Failing and refusing to provide United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied
Workers, Local 162 with the relevant information described in its June 29, 2011 written
request for information.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.5
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the
Act:
(a) Upon request of United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Workers, Local 162
bargain lawfully with that union over the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining 10
agreement to cover employees in the appropriate unit described above.
(b) Within 21 days after receipt of this decision, furnish United Union of Roofers,
Waterproofers, and Allied Workers, Local 162 with the information requested by it in its
June 29, 2011 information request.15
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."16 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 28, after being signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall remain posted by Respondent for 60 20
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if 25
Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means.17 In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facility involved in these proceedings, Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed
by Respondent at any time since April 28, 2011.30
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Regional Office, file with the Regional Director a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that Respondent has taken to comply.
35

16 If 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 Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
17 The question of whether Respondent electronically communicates with employees is left to the
compliance stage of these proceedings.
JD(SF)–52-11
11
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the
Act not specifically found.
Dated: Washington, D.C. December 28, 2011
Lana H. Parke
Administrative Law Judge
5
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT refuse to give relevant, requested information to United Union of Roofers,
Waterproofers, and Allied Workers, Local 162 (the Union) concerning our employees in the
unit the Union represents.
WE WILL NOT unreasonably delay in furnishing relevant, requested information to the Union.
WE WILL NOT set unreasonable limitations on the Union’s use of the information we furnish.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and to bargain lawfully with the Union over the terms and
conditions of a collective bargaining agreement to cover our employees in the unit the Union
represents.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the foregoing rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain lawfully with the Union over the terms and conditions of a
collective bargaining agreement to cover our employees in the unit the Union represents.
WE WILL promptly furnish to the Union the information requested by it on June 29, 2011, and
we will not set unreasonable limitations on its use.
A.W. FARRELL & SON, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to
enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine
whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor
practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how to
file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website:
www.nlrb.gov.
2600 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-3099
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
602-640-2160.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS
PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE
OFFICER, 602-640-2146.