Carpenters, Local 753

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 13, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 568 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America , Local No. 753, AFL-CIO and Blount
Bros. Corporation . Case 23-CD-193
November 13, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On August 25, 1969, Trial Examiner Sydney S
Asher issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 ( c) of the National Labor
Relations Act , as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent , United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America,
Local No. 753, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and
representatives , shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner ' s Recommended Order
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
SYDNEY S ASHER, Trial Examiner On December 17,
1968, Blount Bros Corporation, Houston, Texas, herein
called Blount, filed charges against United Brotherhood of
Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local No 753,
AFL-CIO, Beaumont, Texas, herein called the
Respondent' Amended charges were filed on December
18, 1968 These charges allege that the Respondent and
other labor organizations violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(D)
The Respondent excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Trial Examiner It is the Board ' s established policy not to overrule a Trial
Examiner ' s resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions
are incorrect We find no such basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's
credibility findings in this case Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc , 91
NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29
U S C , Sec 151, et seq ), herein called the Act, in
connection with the assignment of certain work by
General Masonry, Inc , herein called General Masonry, to
employees represented by Laborers International Union of
North America, Local No 870, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Laborers, rather than to individuals represented by the
Respondent Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, the
Board conducted a hearing in Beaumont, Texas, on
January 21 and February 6, 1969, to determine the
dispute On April 23, 1969, the Board issued its Decision
and Determination of Dispute in the matter,' in which it
found, without ruling on the credibility of the testimony
taken before it, that there existed reasonable cause to
believe that the Respondent' had violated Section 8
(b)(4)(D) of the Act and that no agreed-upon method of
settlement of the dispute existed The specific work in
dispute was described as the erecting and dismantling of
steel tubular section scaffolds above the height of 14 feet
at the Lamar State College of Technology construction
project at Beaumont, Texas After noting that the
Respondent conceded that on the merits the Board might
award this work to employees of General Masonry
represented by the Laborers rather than to individuals
represented by the Respondent, the Board determined the
jurisdictional controversy by making such award
On June 17, 1969, the General Counsel issued a
complaint alleging that on about December 12, 1968, the
Respondent threatened, coerced, and restrained Blount by
stating that if General Masonry's employees represented
by the Laborers should perform the work described above,
the Respondent would shut down the job It is alleged that
the object of this conduct was to force or require General
Masonry to assign the disputed work to individuals who
are members of, or represented by, the Respondent, rather
than to employees who are members of, or represented by,
the Laborers It is further alleged that, since on or about
June 9, 1969, the Respondent has failed and refused to
comply with the Board's Decision and Determination of
Dispute It is also alleged that such conduct violated
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act' The Respondent filed an
answer denying that it threatened, coerced, or restrained
Blount, admitting that it had not complied with the
Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute, and
alleging that the Board's Decision and Determination of
Dispute is in direct conflict with a prior decision of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas in a lawsuit which the Respondent brought against
Blount for enforcement of a contract between Blount and
the Respondent The answer further alleges that the
Respondent's sole object is to enforce that contract
through proper legal means, and that the Respondent has
no concern with the manner in which General Masonry
conducts its business, so long as Blount meets its
contractual obligations
Upon due notice a hearing was held before me on July
17, 1969, at Beaumont, Texas The General Counsel,
Blount, General Masonry and the Respondent were
The original charges in this case were filed on December 13, 1968 They
named other labor organizations as respondents, but did not name the
Respondent
'175 NLRB No 81 On May 6, 1969, the Respondent requested that the
Board reconsider its Decision and Determination of Dispute On May 28,
1969, the Board denied this request
'There was no mention of the other labor organizations which are named
in the charges as respondents
'The complaint does not allege any violation of Sec 8 (b)(4)(i)(D) of the
Act
179 NLRB No. 95
CARPENTERS, LOCAL 753 569
represented and participated fully in the hearing. No
appearance was entered on behalf of the Laborers By
stipulation of the parties, the decision, record and exhibits
of the 10(k) hearing were made part of the record herein.
At the close of the hearing the General Counsel filed a
brief, and Blount and General Masonry filed a joint brief
These have been duly considered
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following
Findings of Fact
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, the Board
has found, and it is now found, that Blount and General
Masonry are, and at all material times have been,
employers engaged in commerce and in an industry
affecting commerce as defined in the Act, and their
operations meet the Board's jurisdictional standards,' and
that the Respondent and the Laborers are, and at all
material times have been, labor organizations as defined
in the Act
A. The Setting 6
Blount has a contract with the Board of Regents of
Lamar State College of Technology to construct four
buildings on the college campus at Beaumont, Texas
Blount is a member of the Associated General
Contractors of Jefferson County, herein called AGC,
which has a collective-bargaining agreement with the
Carpenters District Council of Sabine Area and Vicinity,
including Local 753 Article V of the contract provides
that the AGC contractors will bind their subcontractors to
the Agreement designating the National Joint Board for
the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes Article XX, B,
provides that the AGC contractors shall require their
subcontractors to abide by the work jurisdiction
established by the National Joint Board One such
decision, rendered by the National Joint Board in 1920,
awarded the work of erecting self-supporting scaffolds
over 14 feet in height to members of the Carpenters. Any
erection or removal of scaffolding less than that height
would be done by any employees assigned to the task by
the employer
In April 1968, Blount entered into a contract with
General Masonry whereby General Masonry would
perform all the masonry work on the Lamar State College
job This contract makes no reference to any labor
agreements, either of Blount or of General Masonry. Nor
does it provide that General Masonry will refer
jurisdictional disputes to the National Joint Board or be
bound by its decisions
General Masonry is a member of the Masonry
Contractors Association which has a collective-bargaining
'Blount is, and at all material times has been, a Delaware corporation,
with its principal office and place of business in Montgomery , Alabama,
where it is engaged in the business of a general contractor in the building
and construction industry During the 12 months immediately prior to June
17, 1969, it purchased materials valued at more than $50,000 which were
shipped to its Beaumont , Texas, operations directly from sources outside
the State of Texas General Masonry is , and at all material times has been,
a Texas corporation with its principal office and place of business in
Pasadena , Texas, where it is engaged in the business of masonry
construction During the 12 months immediately prior to June 17, 1969, it
purchased materials valued at more than $50,000 which were shipped to it
directly from sources outside the State of Texas
'The findings in this section are taken from the Board 's findings in its
Decision and Determination of Dispute
agreement with the Laborers This agreement does not
provide that the signatories submit jurisdictional disputes
to the National Joint Board or abide by its decisions.
Under this contract the work of erecting and dismantling
all scaffolding is within the jurisdiction of the Laborers
B The Events of December 1968
General Masonry began to perform masonry work on
the college buildings, using some scaffolding However, as
of December 12, 1968, General Masonry had not erected
any scaffolding over 14 feet in height. On that date about
10 am Donald Talbert, the Respondent's business
representative, and William H Carr, his assistant, visited
the jobsite and there conferred with Curtis L. Reece,
superintendent for Blount on the Lamar State College
project, in Reece's field office What occurred during that
conference is the principal factual issue herein
From a synthesis of the testimony of all three persons
present, these undisputed facts emerge. Talbert had with
him a copy of the collective bargaining contract between
AGC and the Union He handed it to Reece, calling
Reece's attention to article XX, B Reece looked at it
Talbert remarked that he wanted Reece to be aware that
that provision was in the contract. Talbert inquired
whether any scaffolds over 14 feet in height would be
erected, and if so, whether any assignment of such work
had been made Reece replied that he did not know, and
that any such work assignment would be made by General
Masonry, the subcontractor Talbert stated that such work
belonged to the Respondent's members. Reece asked if the
scaffolds were over 14 feet in height, did the Respondent
claim only the right to construct that part which exceeded
14 feet. Talbert answered that, if a scaffold was intended
to exceed 14 feet, the Respondent claimed for its members
the right to build the entire scaffold from the ground up,
but if a scaffold was not expected to exceed 14 feet, the
Respondent made no claim to any part of the work of
building it
What next ensued is a matter of dispute According to
Reece, Talbert stated "The Laborers are not going to
build the scaffolds, because it is Carpenter's work if
they do build the scaffolds, we will have to shut the job
down," adding. "We will expect your cooperation in this
matter," to which Reece responded that he would leave
the decision up to General Masonry, as he had no
authority over the assignment of their work. Talbert and
Carr, however, flatly denied that either of them uttered
any threat to Reece about closing down the job Based
upon my observation of the witnesses while testifying, I do
not credit the denials of Talbert and Carr Reece
impressed me as a candid and reliable witness, and I
credit his version as the more accurate.'
According to all three participants, the conversation
then turned to another subject, namely a union steward.
Later, just as Taylor and Carr were about to leave, Reece
tapped with his finger the contract which Talbert had
'The General Counsel introduced as a rebuttal witness Roy Loupe,
Reece's assistant He testified , over the vigorous objection of counsel for
the Respondent , that about 10 minutes after Talbert and Carr left, Reece
stated they had threatened to close down the job Although Loupe neither
participated in nor overheard the conversation between Reece and the
Union 's representatives, I held his testimony to be admissable as part of
the res gestae On reflection , I have some doubts as to the correctness of
that ruling Accordingly , in resolving the conflict between Reece's
testimony on one hand and that of Talbert and Carr on the other, I have
disregarded entirely the testimony of Loupe
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shown him, and said. "I am not going to get in trouble
over this "
About a week later, Talbert received a copy of the
charges herein, which stated that "General Masonry, Inc
has already lawfully assigned such work [to the
Laborers] " Talbert telephoned to Reece and asked him
whether the work previously referred to had been assigned
to members of the Laborers. Reece responded that he did
not know. Talbert stated that "if this were true. it left
me no choice but to take action against Blount " Reece
asked. "By action do you mean picketing?" Talbert
replied that he would have to consult with legal counsel
"and see what action was open to us." Following this
conversation, the Respondent and other labor
organizations signatory to the contract commenced a
lawsuit against Blount to enforce the contract
C The Respondent's Defenses
The Respondent's attorney neither argued orally at the
hearing nor filed a brief. Therefore we must refer to the
answer for a guide to the Respondent's defenses. The first
such defense is set forth in the answer as follows
The respondent would show that its complaint regarding
its contractual dispute with Blount Bros. Corporation
was made the subject of a suit filed in the Federal
Court in December of 1968, styled Carpenters District
Council of the Sabine Area vs. Blount Bros
Corporation, et al, Civil No 6177. The Respondent
would further show that as a result of the filing of said
suit, the subject matter in contention was placed in the
hands of an arbitrator who heard evidence in regard to
the contractual dispute, and then rendered a decision
declaring the disputed contractual provisions valid and
legal, and ordering Blount Bros. Corporation to comply
with said provisions. Blount Bros compliance with its
contract would result in the disputed work being
assigned to the members of the respondent union. The
respondent would further show that on April 14, 1969,
Joe J Fisher, Judge for the Federal District Court,
Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division, entered
an order requiring Blount Bros Corporation to comply
with its contractual provisions with the respondent.
Therefore, respondent says that by virtue of said court
order, it is under no legal requirement to comply with
the Decision of the National Labor Relations Board
rendered in this matter on April 23, 1969, and in fact,
the previous order of the Federal Court had the effect
of settling this dispute.
The short answer to this defense is that it has already
been considered and rejected by the Board. In its original
Decision and Determination of Dispute, the Board stated.
We find without merit Respondent's claim that since it
was merely seeking to enforce Section XX of the
AGC-Carpenters contract with Blount, its conduct was
not for an objective proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D).
The contractual aspect of Respondent's assertion was
pursued by litigation for breach of contract The
concurrent objective of the Carpenters was to force or
require the assignment of the disputed work to
carpenters represented by Respondent rather than to
employees represented by the Laborers The fact that
'In December 1968, an action was commenced in the state court
Carpenters District Council of the Sabine Area & Vicinity v Blount Bros
Corporation , et al. in the 60th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas,
No B-91691 See also Carpenters District Council of the Sabine Area &
Vicinity v Blount Bros Corporation , et al . U S District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division, Civil No 6177
one basis for Respondent's claim was its contract with
Blount does not detract from the jurisdictional nature of
the dispute
Thereafter, on May 6, 1969, the Respondent's attorney
forwarded to the Board a copy of Judge Fisher's decision,
stating.
This order, as we interpret it, is in conflict with the
Board's decision in Case 23-CD-193 . . Judge Fisher
entered his order prior to the finding and decision of the
Board. We feel the court order should stand and ask for
a reconsideration by the Board in this matter
On May 28, 1969, the Board denied this request,
stating, inter alia "any contractual action that
Respondent pursued against Blount Bros for its failure to
bind General Masonry would not affect this proceeding"
So far as I am concerned, this is binding on me and
disposes of the Respondent's defense based on its lawsuit
The Respondent's final defense arises from evidence
introduced for the first time at the unfair labor practice
hearing. On the basis of this undisputed evidence, it is
found that, early in June 1969 (following the Board's
refusal of the Respondent's request for reconsideration but
before the unfair labor practice hearing) the Respondent
submitted the dispute to the National Joint Board.
General Masonry was not a party to this submission, nor
apparently was the Laborers On July 11, 1969, the
National Joint Board wrote to the Respondent, the
Laborers, Blount and General Masonry, as follows
At its meeting July 9-10, 1969 the Joint Board
considered the jurisdictional dispute between the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and the
Laborers International Union of North America over
erection and dismantling of scaffolding over fourteen
feet high, Lamar State College of Technology project,
Beaumont, Texas, Blount Brothers Corporation
contractor, General Masonry Inc subcoritractor.
The Joint Board voted to make the following job
decision: The work in dispute is governed by the
decision of record of April 28, 1920 and shall be
assigned to carpenters
This action of the Joint Board was predicated upon
particular facts and evidence before it regarding this
dispute and shall be effective on this particular job only
It is well settled that, in the absence of material newly
discovered or previously unavailable, an award of disputed
work by the Board in a Decision and Determination of
Dispute is not open to review by a Trial Examiner in a
proceeding on an 8(b)(4)(D) complaint.' On the other
hand, it is clear that during the complaint proceeding the
Respondent is entitled to introduce new or previously
undiscovered evidence to rebut the Board's award of
work.iO The Respondent herein argues that the evidence
concerning submission of the dispute to, and
determination of the dispute by, the National Joint Board
is new evidence unavailable to it during the 10(k)
proceedings, as those proceedings had concluded before
the submission in question took place The General
'New York Printing Pressmen 's Union No 2. AFL-CIO (New York
Times Company ). 154 NLRB 1122, 1124, and cases cited in fn 6 therein
See also International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union,
(Aluminum Company of America). 163 NLRB 1039, 1042, enfd as
modified 413 F 2d 30 (C A 9), and Local 3 , International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO ( Western Electric Company ), 144 NLRB
1318, fn 1, enfd 339 F 2d 145 (C A 2)
"International Longshoremen 's Association , Local 1576, AFL-CIO
(Texas Contracting Company , et al ). 166 NLRB No 104 (TXD) enfd 409
iF 2d 709 (C A 5)
CARPENTERS , LOCAL 753 571
Counsel, Blount and General Masonry take an opposing
position. They urge that the Respondent was free to
submit the dispute to the National Joint Board at any
time after it arose in December 1968, that it nevertheless
refrained from doing so until after the conclusion of the
10(k) proceeding, and that therefore the belated
submission cannot properly be considered "new" or
"unavailable" evidence In the view I take of this case,
this matter need not be resolved It will be assumed,
without deciding, that the evidence in question constitutes
new evidence, unavailable to the Respondent during the
10(k) proceedings
In considering this evidence, it should be noted that
twice in the Decision and Determination of Dispute the
Board stated that there was no evidence that the current
dispute had been submitted to the National Joint Board.
It should also be recalled that, in determining who is
entitled to work in dispute, "the Board will consider all
relevant factors," including "awards of . . . joint boards ""
However, the probative value of the National Joint
Board's award of July 11, 1969, is considerably lessened
by the fact that, so far as the record shows, neither
General Masonry, the employer who made the work
assignment, nor the Laborers, against whom the National
Joint Board's award ran, participated in the National
Joint Board proceedings, and as the Board noted in its
Decision and Determination of Dispute, these parties were
not bound in advance to comply therewith
The most compelling reason why the National Joint
Board's award of July 11, 1969, carries little weight is the
premise on which that award is based For the only reason
advanced by the National Joint Board in support of its
award is "The work in dispute is governed by the decision
of record of April 28, 1920 " However, as the Board has
pointed out, that 49-year-old award was rendered "some
16 years before the appearances of tubular metal
scaffolding.12 Its present applicability to tubular metal
scaffolding, such as the scaffolding here used by General
Masonry, is therefore open to serious question.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon
the entire record in this case, I make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I Blount Bros Corporation and General Masonry,
Inc., are, and at all material times have been, employers
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in
commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2 United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America, Local No. 753, AFL-CIO, and Laborers
International Union of North America, Local No 870,
AFL-CIO, are, and at all material times have been, labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act
3. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Blount
Bros. Corporation on or about December 12, 1968, with
an object of forcing or requiring Blount Bros. Corporation
and General Masonry, Inc., to assign the erecting and
dismantling of steel tubular section scaffolds above the
height of 14 feet at the Lamar State College of
Technology construction project at Beaumont, Texas, to
individuals represented by the Respondent rather than to
employees represented by the Laborers International
Union of North America, Local No 870, AFL-CIO, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of
the Act.
4 The above-described unfair labor practices tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce, and constitute
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
I make the following
RECOMMENDED ORDER
D. Conclusion
It is concluded that the National Joint Board's award
of July 11, 1969, if entitled to consideration as newly
discovered or previously unavailable evidence, is not
sufficiently persuasive to overcome the Board's prior
determination of this dispute In view of the finding,
above, that on December 12, 1968, the Respondent's
agents threatened to close down the job, and the
Respondent's failure to comply with the Board's Decision
and Determination of Dispute, it is concluded that the
Respondent sought by illegal means to obtain the
assignment of work to which it was not entitled, and by
such conduct violated Section 8(b)(4)(n)(D) of the Act."
"International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO
(J A Jones Construction Companvl. 135 NLRB 1402, 1410-1I
"Carpenters Union Local 1260, AFL-CIO (Seedorff Masonry, Inc ). 173
NLRB No 184 See also Jefferson County Alabama and Vicinity
Carpenters District Council (S & W Masonry. Inc ), 173 NLRB No 190,
and Newton, Massachusetts District Council, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Porrazzo and Hurley Co,
Inc ). 177 NLRB No 36 The first two cited cases were decided by the
Board before its Decision and Determination of Dispute in the instant case,
but the Newton case was decided after the Board's Decision and
Determination of Dispute herein All three involved assignment of the
erecting and dismantling of steel tubular section scaffolds above the height
of 14 feet
"This conclusion is not based on anything said by Talbert in his
It is recommended that United Brotherhood of
Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local No 753,
AFL-CIO,its officers, agents, successors and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or
restraining Blount Bros. Corporation, or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require
Blount Bros. Corporation, General Masonry, Inc , or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce, to assign the work of erecting and
dismantling steel tubular section scaffolds above the height
of 14 feet at the Lamar State College of Technology
construction project at Beaumont, Texas, to individuals
represented by the Respondent rather than to employees
represented by Laborers International Union of North
America, Local No 870, AFL-CIO
2 Take the following affirmative action, which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix.""
telephone conversation with Reece after receiving a copy of the charges
herein
"In the event that Recommended Order should be adopted by the
Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the
words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice If the
Board's Order should be enforced by a United States Court of Appeals,
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Copies of the said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 23, after being duly signed
by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall
be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily displayed. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such
notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other
material
(b) Sign and transmit copies of said notice to the said
Regional Director for posting by Blount Bros
Corporation and General Masonry, Inc., if these
companies should be willing
(c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has
taken to comply herewith 11
the words "a Decision of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order "
"In the event that Recommended Order should be adopted by the
Board , this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the said Regional
Director , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply herewith "
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Blount
Bros Corporation, or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where
an object is to force or require Blount Bros
Corporation, General Masonry, Inc , or any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, to assign the work of erecting and
dismantling of steel tubular section scaffolds above the
height of 14 feet at the Lamar State College of
Technology construction project at Beaumont, Texas,
to individuals represented by this union rather than to
employees represented by Laborers International Union
of North America, Local No 870, AFL-CIO.
Dated By
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 753,
AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
UNITED BROTHERHOOD
OF CARPENTERS &
JOINERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL No 753,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 6617 Federal
Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002,
Telephone 713-226-4296