Carpenters Local Union 1260

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 13, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 628 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carpenters Local Union 1260 , United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO and
Selzer Construction Co., Inc . Case 18-CP-127
May 13, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On January 31, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Frank H . Itkin issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, General Counsel filed a brief
in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision and Order, and Charging Party filed a brief
in answer to Respondent's exceptions and 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
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,
findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent , Carpenters Local
Union 1260 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, its officers , agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order.
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall
Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
DECISION
FRANK H. ITKIN, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was tried before me at Iowa City , Iowa, on October 30,
1973. The unfair labor practice charge was filed by Selzer
Construction Co., Inc. ("Selzer Construction"), on August
16 and the complaint issued on October 2, 1973. The
principal issue presented is whether Carpenters Local
Union 1260, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America , AFL-CIO ("Respondent Union"),
violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act by picketing Selzer Construction for more than
30 days for an organizational or recognitional object
without filing a petition for a representation election. Upon
the entire record before me, including my observation of
the witnesses , and after due consideration of the briefs filed
by all counsel, I make the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. INTRODUCTION; RESPONDENT UNION PICKETS
SELZER CONSTRUCTION 1
Selzer Construction , an Iowa corporation, has its office
and principal place of business in Iowa City where it is
engaged in the construction industry. During the past year,
Selzer Construction's sales were in excess of $1,000,000.
Selzer Construction purchased, during this same period,
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which
goods and materials were shipped to it directly from
outside of Iowa for use in connection with the Company's
construction operations in Iowa . I find and conclude that
Selzer Construction is therefore an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7)
of the Act. Further , I find and conclude that Respondent
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
Thomas Verry has been at all times material business
representative for Respondent Union. I find and conclude
that Verry is an agent of Respondent Union within the
meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. R.E. Crider has been
at all times material business manager for Millwrights
Local 2158, International Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO ("Millwrights Local 2158").
Respondent Union denies that Crider has been or is its
agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
Selzer Construction has been engaged, at all times
material to this proceeding, as general contractor at both
the Plamor Lanes and Highlander Motel construction sites
in Iowa City. Since about July 23, 1973, and continuously
until about October 15, 1973, Respondent Union has
picketed Selzer Construction at the Plamor Lanes con-
struction site . Since about August 13, 1973, and continu-
ously until about October 15, 1973, Respondent Union
also has picketed Selzer Construction at the Highlander
Motel construction site.2 The picket sign used by Respon-
dent Union at the above sites read as follows:
I The findings of fact and conclusions of law recited in this section are
based essentially upon admissions set forth in the pleadings and stipulations
by the parties
2 Picketing stopped at both sites about October 15 following service of a
210 NLRB No. 103
temporary inJuction order issued by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa, pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act. (Wilson v.
Carpenters Local 1260, Civil No 73-43 D, Oct 11, 1973, D C. S D Iowa.)
CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION 1260
Selzer Const. Co. Inc.
Only
Fails to Pay Prevailing Wages
And Meet Prevailing Conditions
Carpenters Local 1260, AFL-CIO
Respondent Union has not been certified as collective-
bargaining representative for any of Selzer Construction's
employees. And, Respondent Union has engaged in the
foregoing picketing for more than 30 days without the
filing of a representation petition under Section 9(c) of the
Act.
Respondent Union, in its answer to the unfair labor
practice complaint, alleges that at no time material has it
sought, nor does it now seek, to organize or represent any
of Selzer Construction's employees and that its picketing at
the above sites was solely for a permissible area standards
object. The evidence pertaining to the object of Respon-
dent Union's picketing is discussed below.
II. THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO ORGANIZATIONAL
OR RECOGNITIONAL OBJECT
John Reed is manager of Kennedy and Company, the
acoustical ceiling contractor working at the Highlander
construction site . Reed credibly testified that on August 13
one of his carpenter employees advised him that there was
a picket at the Highlander site. Reed then went to
Respondent Union 's business representative , Thomas
Verry. Reed testified:
I [Reed] asked him [Verry] what was going on at the
Highlander. . . . I asked Verry what we could do to
get the picket off and he wrote a number on a piece of
paper and he said , "give this to Max [Selzer ] if he wants
to settle his problems."
Reed took this piece of paper containing a telephone
number and gave it to John Werle , foreman and job
superintendent for Selzer Construction . Reed recalled that
he told Werle , "to tell Max [Selzer ] if he wanted to settle
his problems he'd have to call the number." The telephone
number on this piece of paper was the number of
Millwrights Local 2158 and its business manager, R.E.
Crider, in Davenport , Iowa.3
Max Selzer credibly testified that during the morning of
August 14 , he called the telephone number which had been
given to him by Werle and Reed . A lady answered the
3 John Werle credibly testified that on August 13 Reed handed to him a
piece of paper with a telephone number on it and said , " I was to give it to
my boss , Mr Selzer " Werle asked Reed , "what it was " Reed responded
"It was to give to Mr Selzer and that would take care of the pickets " Werle
gave this piece of paper to Selzer later that day
4 Later that same day , Werle brought another telephone number to
Selzer while Selzer was working at Highlander Werle had received a
telephone call for Selzer on Selzer's construction telephone at the
Highlander Werle wrote down the telephone number on a piece of
cardboard and gave the piece of cardboard to Selzer Apparently, Werle
made a mistake in writing down this number Selzer attempted to place the
call without success
S Respondent Union's business representative , Verry, was present at the
629
telephone . Selzer explained to the lady that he had been
given this number to call. She replied that Selzer "should
be talking to Mr . Cnder" ; that Crider was not then in the
office ; and that she would as requested have Crider return
Selzer's call.4 Selzer further testified that during the
afternoon of August 14, he was present in the Highlander
office with Robert McGerk , a partner and general manager
of Highlander Supper Club and Highlander Inn. Selzer
recalled that McGerk was talking on the telephone to
Respondent Union 's business representative, Thomas
Verry, "about the possibility of getting the pickets
removed ." During this conversation , McGerk apprised
Verry that Selzer "was trying to get hold of Mr . Crider."
Verry then relayed to McGerk Crider's telephone number.
Thereafter , during the late afternoon of August 14, Selzer
telephoned and spoke with Crider.
Selzer credibly related his conversation with Crider as
follows:
I [Selzer] told him [Cnder] who I was and I told him
that the reason I placed the call was because I had
received this telephone number through Mr. Reed from
Mr. Verry to call this number, and finally I just said,
"what do you want?" And Mr. Crider's response was,
"We want to organize Selzer Construction Co. and I
[Cnder] would like for you to call Mr. Bernard Mamet
in Chicago and Mr. Mamet will set down some
guidelines for you for Selzer Construction Co. and the
unions will be fair and equitable to both parties."
Selzer then apprised Crider of Selzer's earlier meeting with
the Cedar Rapids Building Trades Council in August 1972
concerning the Highlander project. Selzer asserted that at
that meeting the "owners had decided that they would
open the bidding up . . . that the job would be open
bidding...." Selzer told Crider that, in view of the
understanding assertedly arrived at during the Trades
Council meeting, the current picketing was "morally
wrong."5 Cnder again "urged [Selzer] to contact Mr.
Mamet . . . . [Crider] also told [Selzer] that many of his
strongest supporters in the Quad City area were former
open shop contractors who had been organized." Crider
"again asked [Selzer] to contact Mr. Mamet and set up the
guidelines so that we could come to some sort of an
agreement that would be fair and equitable to both
parties."6 McGerk was seated next to Selzer during all or a
portion of the above conversation.
Robert McGerk credibly testified that on August 13 he
telephoned Very urging Verry to remove the pickets.
McGerk called Verry again on August 14. Selzer was
seated next to McGerk during a portion of this latter
Cedar Rapids Building Trades Council meeting of August 1972 The Trades
Council, according to its letter to Selzer dated July 21, 1972, had requested
the meeting in order to discuss the Highlander job and "point out the
advantages to you of using well-trained skilled union craftsmen on your
project
6 During this conversation , as Selzer credibly recalled, Selzer asked
Crider "what his horsepower was" and Crider responded that "he had been
assigned a situation " When Selzer asked Crider to remove the pickets,
Crider said that "he couldn't, he'd have to talk to Mr Mamet " There
was testimony , discussed infra, that Cnder had agreed to obtain legal
assistance for Very in the defense of the proceedings against Respondent
Union.
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conversation. Verry asked McGerk during the August 14
conversation, ". . . why don't you call Crider in Daven-
port?" McGerk replied that Selzer "was trying to" call
Crider. During this conversation, Verry furnished McGerk
with Crider's telephone number.?
III. DISCUSSION
Section 8(b)(7), enacted as part of the 1959 amendments
to the National Labor Relations Act, constitutes a
comprehensive code governing recognitional and organiza-
tional picketing. N.L.R.B. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs and
Helpers Local Union No. 639 (Curtis Bros.), 362 U.S. 274,
291 (1960). Subsection (C) of Section 8(b)(7), which is
involved here, prohibits picketing by an uncertified union
where an object thereof is "forcing or requiring an
employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization
as the representative of his employees" or "forcing or
requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select
such labor organization as their collective bargaining
representative" if such picketing has been conducted for
more than 30 days without the filing of an election petition.
As the Board, the courts, and the commentators have
repeatedly pointed out, Section 8(bX7) was enacted as a
corollary to the Federal policy of ensuring employees a
free choice in the selection of a bargaining representative.
Dayton Typographical Union No. 57 [The Greenfield
Printing and Publishing Co.] v. N.L.R.B., 326 F.2d 634,
646-649 (C.A. D.C., 1966); Local 542, Operating Engineers
(R.S. Noonan, Inc.), 142 NLRB 1132 (1963), enfd., 331 F.2d
99, 107 (C.A. 3, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 889 (1964);
Lebus v. Building & Construction Trades Council of New
Orleans, 199 F. Supp. 628, 631-632 (E.D. La., 1961); Cox,
The Landrum-Griffin Amendments to the NLRA, 44 Minn.
L. Rev. 257, 262-266 (1959); Meltzer, Organizational
Picketing and the NLRA, 30 U. of Chi. L. Rev. 78, 79-80,
83 (1962). Prior to the enactment of the 1959 amendments,
a union could lawfully picket an unorganized employer for
an unlimited length of time, either to compel the employer
to recognize it as the bargaining representative of his
employees or to force or require the employees to select it
as their representative. Section 8(b)(7)(C) removes this
threat to employee free choice by encouraging prompt
resort to the Board's election machinery, rather than the
' Respondent Union's Business Representative Verry testified, inter alto,
that Reed had asked him on August 13 "how to get the picket off", that
Verry told Reed "to get hold of my legal counsel", that Verry gave Reed the
telephone number of the Millwnghts Local 2158 office in Davenport, that
Verry asked Crider for legal assistance in these proceedings; and that
Bernard Mamet, as a result of Crider's efforts, agreed to take the case. Verry
claimed that Crider had nothing to do with the above picketing, other than
putting Verry in touch with Mamet. Verry denied any unlawful organiza-
tional or recognitional object of the picketing and, further, asserted that
Crider was not authorized to speak for Respondent Union Verry claimed.
I gave the Millwrights office number to Mr Reed to get the telephone
number of my legal counsel because Mr Reed seemed to be in a rush
to get his material off thejob
Verry acknowledged that McGerk had telephoned him on August 13 and
14. Verry denied, inter alga, telling McGerk. "call Crider, this is the way that
you can get the picket off " Verry gave to McGerk Cnder's telephone
number on August 14.
Robert Crider testified, inter alto, that he spoke with Selzer on August 14
Crider denied the various statements pertaining to organizational or
economic pressures of picketing, as the method for
resolving questions of representation. In sum, as the Court
stated in Department & Specialty Store Employees Local
1265 v. Brown, 284 F.2d 619, 626 (C.A. 9, 1960), cert.
denied 366 U.S. 934 (1961), "there is no doubt that the
purpose of this legislation was to place rather severe and
drastic limitations on picketing, other than informational,
and to provide for a representation election without delay."
However, when a union pickets an employer for the sole
purpose of compelling compliance with prevailing area
wage and benefit standards, the Board regards the
picketing activity-so-called "area standards" picketing
-as nonrecognitional and outside the proscription of
Section 8(b)(7). See, e.g., Local Union 741, Plumbers (Keith
Riggs Plumbing and Heating Contractor), 137 NLRB 1125
(1962); Houston Building and Construction Trades Council
(Claude Everett Construction Company), 136 NLRB 321
(1962). The Board has reasoned, and the courts have
concurred, that a union
has a legitimate interest apart from recognition and
bargaining that employers meet prevailing pay scales
and employee benefits, for otherwise employers paying
less than the prevailing wage scales could ultimately
undermine area standards. [Local Union 741, Plumbers
(Keith Riggs Plumbing and Heating Contractor), 137
NLRB 1125, 1126 (1962).]
And see, N.L.R.B. v. Carpenters Local No. 2133, 356 F.2d
464, 465-466 (C.A. 9, 1966); N.L. R. B. v. Local 182,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters [Woodward Mo-
tors], 314 F.2d 53, 58-59 (C.A. 2, 1963). In the instant case,
Respondent Union argues that the picketing at the Plamor
and Highlander sites was motivated by a permissible area
standards object and, further, that any declarations of
union representatives and the picket signs are consistent
with this purported objective . But in determining whether a
union has picketed for a proscribed object, the Board is not
bound by the Union's self-serving declarations. N.L.R.B. v.
Local 182, Teamsters, sera; N.L.R.B. v. Carpenters Local
No. 2133, supra; Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons'
Local 44 (Penny Construction Company, Inc.), 144 NLRB
1298, 1300 (1963). Moreover, Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act
applies if "an object" of the picketing is recognition or
organization. For, as with the comparable language in
Section 8(b)(4) (cf. N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and
recognitional object which had been attributed to him by Selzer. Crider
recalled that Verry had asked Crider if Mamet, Crider's attorney, could
handle this case . Crider called Mamet as "a friendship to Tom Verry"
Crider asserted that during his August 14 conversation with Selzer , Selzer
asked how he could "get the picket off of the Highlander." Crider gave
Selzer "Mamet's number and said ... you call him right away ." Crider
admitted that "we did have a conversation basically about non-union
contractors in general joining unions ." Crider claimed , however, that there
was no intention to organize Selzer Construction.
Bernard Mamet also testified. Mamet explained, inter alga, how he came
to represent Respondent Union. Mamet also gave his recollection of certain
testimony given before the District Court in the Section 10(1) proceeding.
The testimony of Selzer , McGerk, Reed , and Werle as summarized above
is in part mutually corroborative. The testimony of Verry, Crider, and
Mamet substantiates in part the testimony of Selzer , McGerk, Reed, and
Werle as stated above. I credit the above -stated testimony of Selzer,
McGerk, Reed, and Werle as a reasonable and trustworthy account of the
incidents related . Insofar as the testimony of Verry, Crider, and Mamet
differs from the above testimony of Selzer, McGerk , Reed, and Werle, I am
persuaded on this record that the testimony of the latter witnesses as stated
herein is more reasonable and reliable.
CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION 1260 631
Construction Trades Council [Gould & Preisner], 341 U.S.
675, 688-689 (1951); IBEW, Local 501 [Samuel Langer] v.
N.L.R.B., 341 U.S. 694, 700 (1951), as long as one of the
Union's objects is illegal, it is immaterial that it may also
have other, legitimate objects. National Packing Company
v. N.L.R.B., 377 F.2d 800, 803 (C.A. 10, 1967); Dayton
Typographical Union No. 57 v. N.L.R.B., supra, 326 F.2d at
645 (C.A. D.C., 1966); Dallas Building and Construction
Trades Council [Dallas County Construction Employers
Association, Inc.] v. N.L.R.B., 396 F.2d 677, 682 (C.A.
D.C., 1968).
Upon the credited evidence of record summarized above,
I find and conclude that Respondent Union's picketing
was for a proscribed organizational or recognitional object.
Thus, on August 13 John Reed, manager of the acoustical
ceiling contractor at the Highlander site, asked Thomas
Verry, Respondent Union's business representative, "what
we could do to get the picket off...... Verry said nothing
about prevailing area wage and benefit standards. Instead,
Verry gave Reed the telephone number of R.E. Crider,
business manager of Millwrights Local 2158. Verry told
Reed: "Give this to Max [Selzer] if he wants to settle his
problems." Verry admittedly had solicited legal assistance
from Crider and Millwrights Local 2158 as a result of these
proceedings . Thereafter, on August 14, Verry asked
McGerk, a partner and general manager of Highlander,
"why don't you call Crider in Davenport?" McGerk
explained to Verry that Selzer was in fact "trying to" call
Crider. Verry furnished McGerk with Crider's number.
Later that same afternoon on August 14, Selzer and Crider
spoke on the telephone. During their conversation, Crider
apprised Selzer:
e.g., Local 584, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, et al.
(Fairway Farms, Inc.), 141 NLRB 638 , 639 (1963); N.L.R.B.
v. Local 815, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
(Montauk Iron & Steel Corp.), 290 F .2d 99, 103-104 (C.A. 2,
1961); N. L. R.B. v. Local 3, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers [New York Telephone Co.], 467 F.2d
1158 (C.A. 2, 1972).
In addition, C Board has consistently held that one
factor to be considered in testing whether a union's
picketing is really aimed at protesting substandard wages
and working conditions is whether the union actually
knows or has made an effort to discover whether the
employer's wages and working conditions are in fact
substandard . See Construction, Shipyard and General
Laborers, Local 1207 (Alfred S . Austin Construction Compa-
ny, Inc.), 141 NLRB 283, 284 ( 1%3); Centralia Building &
Construction Trade Council (Pacific Sign & Steel Building
Co.), 155 NLRB 803, 806 ( 1965), enfd. 363 F.2d 699, 701
(C.A. D.C., 1966). Here , Respondent Union made no such
effort . Thus, Verry admittedly had made no inquiry of
Selzer Construction to determine the employer 's wages and
working conditions . Verry generally asserted that he had
determined that Selzer Construction provided substandard
wages from what he had heard "some carpenters .. .
discussing with their fellow workers ....."8 Verry was
unware of what fringe benefits if any Selzer Construction
provided for its employees . Under all the circumstances,
Verry's failure to make any real effort to ascertain whether
Selzer Construction was providing substandard wages and
working conditions further buttresses the foregoing finding
of unlawful object.9
We want to organize Selzer Construction Co. and I
[Crider] would like for you to call Mr. Bernard Mamet
in Chicago and Mr. Mamet will set down some
guidelines for you and Selzer Construction Co. and the
unions will be fair to both parties. . . . [Cnder] also
told [Selzer] that many of his strongest supporters in
the Quad City area were former open shop contractors
who had been organized. . . [Cnder] again asked
[Selzer] to contact Mr. Mamet and set up the guidelines
so that we could come to some sort of an agreement
that would be fair and equitable to both parties.
The foregoing evidence sufficiently establishes an organ-
izational or recognitional object . Respondent , however,
argues that Crider is not an agent of Respondent Union.
This contention is without merit . Here , Respondent
Union's agent, Verry, gave Crider's telephone number to
Reed with the instructions , "Give this to Max [Selzer] if he
wants to settle his problems ." Under settled principles of
agency law, Respondent Union cannot now be heard to
complain that it is not responsible for Cnder's August 14
instructions to Selzer on how to remove the pickets. See,
8 When asked if he was "aware of where your members got their
information ," Verry responded "probably through idle conversation as you
pass the time of day working."
9 Respondent Union relies in part on the Regional Director's dismissal
of the instant charge against Respondent , the dismissal of the CP charge
against Millwrights Local 2158 and the dismissal of related CC charges
against Respondent Union and Millwrights Local 2158. The office of
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Selzer Construction is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Union violated Section 8 (bX7XC) of the
Act by picketing Selzer Construction at the Plamor Lanes
and Highlander Motel construction sites in Iowa City with
an object of forcing or requiring Selzer Construction to
recognize or bargain with Respondent Union as the
representative of Selzer Construction's employees or
forcing or requiring the employees of Selzer Construction
to accept or select Respondent Union as their collective-
bargaining representative , although Respondent Union at
no time material has been certified as the representative of
such employees and although Respondent Union has not
filed a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act within 30 days
from the commencement of said picketing.
4. The unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
appeals subsequently sustained the dismissals except with respect to the
instant charge As stated at the hearing below, the only issue before me is
whether the General Counsel has proven by sufficient competent evidence
that Respondent Union violated Section 8 (bX7XC) as alleged in the instant
unfair labor practice complaint.
Charging Party 's motion to correct the transcript , which is unopposed, is
hereby granted.
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Union violated Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered
to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor
practices found herein and from engaging in like and
related conduct . I shall also recommend that Respondent
Union take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
ORDER 10
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this
proceeding, Respondent Carpenters Local Union 1260,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from picketing or causing to be
picketed, or threatening to picket or causing to be picketed,
Selzer Construction Co., Inc., at the Plamor Lanes or
Highlander Motel construction sites in Iowa City, Iowa, or
at any other facility, where an object thereof is to force or
require Selzer Construction to recognize or bargain with
Respondent Union, Carpenters Local Union 1260, as the
representative of Selzer Construction's employees, or to
force or require the employees of Selzer Construction to
accept or select Respondent Union as their collective-
bargaining representative, unless Respondent Union is
currently certified by the National Labor Relations Board
as the representative of such employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Respondent Union shall post at its business offices
and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." ii Copies of the notice to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 18 shall be duly signed and
posted by Respondent Union immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to members are customarily posted
for a period of 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(b) Respondent Union shall mail or deliver to said
Regional Director signed copies of said notice for posting
by Selzer Construction if said employer is willing to do so.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Decision what
steps have been taken by Respondent Union to comply
herewith.
10 In the event that no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 102 .48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes.
I i In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed, or
threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, Selzer
Construction Co., Inc., at the Plamor Lanes or
Highlander Motel construction sites in Iowa City,
Iowa, or at any other facility, where an object thereof is
to force or require Selzer Construction to recognize or
bargain with us as the representative of Selzer Con-
struction's employees, or to force or require the
employees of Selzer Construction to accept or select us
as their collective-bargaining representative, unless we
are currently certified by the National Labor Relations
Board as the representative of such employees.
CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION
1260, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS
OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
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 Board's Office, 316
Federal Building, 110 South 4th Street , Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55401, Telephone 612-725-2601.